JUDGMENT

Scott-Smith, J. - Criminal Appeals Nos. 575, 576 and 596 are By three persons who have been convicted by a Magistrate with Section 30 powers of illegal possession of chhavis and have been sentenced under Section 20 of the Arms Act to 4 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment each.

2. The appellants were tried separately, but as a great deal of the evidence is the same in all the cases, the appeals may conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.

3. The appellants, who all got out of the same train at the Dhariwal Railway Station, were searched as suspicious characters by the Polios in the presence of reliable witnesses. They were carrying dangs, and chhavi blades were found in the waistcoat pocket of one and in the loin cloths of the other two.

4. The first point raised in appeal is, that the appellants were not really tried separately at all, but that there was a joint trial, and that this was illegal being opposed to the procedure laid down in the Criminal 'Procedure Code. After an examination of the records of the three cases, it is clear to me that the trials were separate and not joint. The case of, Thakar Singh was taken up first and at the conclusion of the statement of Sardar Sant Singh, Sub-Inspactor, the Magistrate recorded the following note:

All three of the accused have been present during the course of the examination of this witness. Counsel for the three accused agree that the statements of the witness be read over in the connected cases as well. They agree that their clients will not be in any way prejudiced in this way and it will be a great saving of time.

5. The rest of the witnesses in Thakar "Singh's case were then examined, and the cases against Makhan Singh and Narain 'Singh were subsequently taken up. The witnesses were again put into the witness-box and the statements made by them in Thakar Singh's case were read over to them. They admitted them to be correct and said that they had nothing to add. In Makhan Singh's case P.W. No. 5, Hafizulla Beg, was the Constable who had himself arrested him and conducted his search. He was not a witness in the case of Thakar Singh at all. Similarly, in the case of Narain Singh, Din Mohammad Constable, P.W. No. 5, was the witness who conducted the search of Narain Singh's person and was not a witness in the other two cases at all. It is, therefore, clear that the trials were separate. There is no doubt that the procedure adopted of reading out the statements of witnesses recorded in the first case was irregular, but it is quite clear that no prejudice has been caused to any of the appellants by this course which, according to the learned Sessions Judge, was suggested by appellants Counsel. The only authority cited which has any bearing on the present case is that reported in Nathu Sheikh v. Queen-Empress (1884) 10 Cal. 405. In that case four persons were accused of having given false evidence in the same proceeding and the Sessions Judge, while professing tot try each case separately, heard the evidence of the witnesses only once. The High Court held that this was an error in the proceedings which would probably have proved fatal to the convictions, but these were set aside on the merits and the point was not, therefore, decided. Moreover, it is not clear from the judgment whether the facts were on all fours with the present case or not. I do not think that this is a case to which the well-known ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council reported as Subrahmania Ayyar v. King-Emperor (1902) 25 Mad. 61 is applicable.

6. On the merits, I am of opinion that the case against each of the appellants is clearly established. The evidence as to the search of their persons is quite conclusive and is very reliable, The petty discripancies pointed out by Counsel are quite immaterial, and do not at all shake the credibility of the witnesses. The convictions are, I consider, fully justified by the evidence. The learned Magistrate has given good reasons for awarding heavy sentences, a