The admissibility of an approver's evidence, the retracted confessions of the accused, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the convictions under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. On the 11th February, 1943, in Ordinance Case No. I of 1942, the appellants were convicted by the Special Judge of Madura on charges which will be indicated presently and sentenced to terms of imprisonment The Special Judge was appointed under the provisions of the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942. On the 5th June, 1943, that Ordinance was cancelled by the Special Criminal Courts (Repeal) Ordinance, 1943, but Section 3 of the repealing Ordinance provided that a sentence already passed under the repealed Ordinance should continue to have effect as if the trial had been held in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and gave a right of appeal. These appeals have been filed under Section 3 of the later Ordinance, and have been placed before a Bench of three Judges as important questions under the Indian Evidence Act arise

2. On the evening of Friday, the 23rd October, 1942, Rao Sahib Viswanathan Nayar, Circle Inspector of Police in Madura, visited the Sri Minakshi temple for the purpose of worship. It was his practice to worship at this temple every Friday On this occasion he was accompanied by Police Constable Palaniappan and a friend named Kumara Menon. They arrived at the temple at about 7-30 p.m. and after worshipping at two shrines they proposed to leave-by the gateway under the southern tower. To gain access to the street from this gateway they had to mount a flight of stone steps. As they were emerging, corrosive acid was thrown at them and loud explosions occurred. Acid fell on all of them and they all suffered grievous hurt The Circle Inspector received the most serious injuries and was in hospital for nearly twelve months. The attack was so sudden and was of such a nature that the victims were not able to observe who their assailants were.

3. On the 30th October, 1942, the police arrested eleven persons whom they suspected of being implicated in the outrage. One of them was a student named H. Knshnamoorthi, who subsequently was granted a pardon and gave evidence in support of the case for the prosecution. The other ten persons appeared at the trial as accused 1 to 10 respectively. Five other persons were arrested later and one surrendered himself. They appeared at the trial as accused 11 to 16 respectively The Special Judge discharged the first, fourth, fourteenth and fifteenth accused under Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code and acquitted the fifth, sixth, eighth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth accused. The second, third, seventh, ninth and sixteenth accused were found guilty under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, of criminal conspiracy to cause grievous hurt to the Circle Inspector. The second and third accused were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and the seventh, ninth and sixteenth accused to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. The third accused was also convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and here sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. In addition to his conviction under Section 120-B the seventh accused was convicted under Section 147, under Sections 326 and 333 read with Section 149 on two other charges under Section 326 read with Section 149 and under Rule 34(6)(c) of the Defence of India Rules. He was sentenced on each of these charges to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. The ninth and sixteenth accused were also convicted under these sections and under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Their sentences were the same, except that in respect of the conviction under the Explosive Substances Act, the sentence was of three years rigorous imprisonment. The thirteenth accused was merely found guilty of an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and ordered to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. Where more than one sentence was imposed the Special Judge directed that the sentences should run concurrently. The Penalties (Enhancement) Ordinance, 1942, was invoked wh