JUDGMENT

Dalip Singh, J. - These two applications for bail may be disposed of by one order. The facts are as follows:

2. A complaint was made by Agha Ahmad Said Khan, Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police that three persons Mehta Anand Kishore, son of Radha Kishan of Bazar Wachhowali of Lahore City, Ram Chandra, B.A. (National) at present joint Editor of the Bande Matram Newspaper, and Ahmed Din butcher of Amritsar, at present Secretary of the Naujowan Bharat Sabha, Ludhiana, made seditious speeches at a public meeting held at Bradlaugh Hall, Lahore, on 16th December 1928. In each of the complaints it was stated that a translation of the alleged speech was attached to the complaint. No such translation was, as a matter of fact, attached. The complaint went on to state that the said speeches were within the purview of Section 124-A, I.P.C. and recited the words of that section. Para. 3 stated that the sanction of the Local Government required under Section 196, Criminal P.C. was attached herewith. It was prayed, therefore, in all the complaints that the accused be tried and convicted of the offence of which he may be found guilty. In the sanction order attached to the complaint a short abstract of the words used or words to the following effect was given in each of the orders conveying sanction. The complaints were put in on 2nd January 1929. The date of the sanction was 31st December 1928. On 2nd January 1929, Agha Ahmad Said Khan made a statement declaring that he had been directed by the Punjab Government to file the complaint against each of the persons for having made a seditious speech. In that statement it was also stated that the original speeches would be filed later on and the complainant prayed for the issue of a non-bailable warrant of arrest and also for an order on Sheikh Amir Ali, Deputy Superintendent Police, Punjab, under Section 155, Criminal P.C., to investigate the case.

3. The learned Magistrate appears to have issued the non-bailable warrants without the originals or translations of the alleged speeches; and I should here point out that this was entirely irregular. The Magistrate has to take cognizance of an offence on a complaint and the complaint, as has been held again and again, must contain a statement of facts which are alleged to constitute the offence. It has also been held that merely to cite the words of a section is only a colourable compliance with the requirements of the Statute, though of course it is unnecessary to set out all the details of the offence. In this case if by any mischance the report of the alleged speeches was not available, it was perfectly easy for the complainant to rely on the abstract given in the order conveying sanction. But even that was not mentioned by the complainant in his statement, On 3rd January 1929, the accused appear to have applied for bail under Section 496, Criminal P.C. The learned Magistrate on 3rd January (presumably 29 though the order is dated 28) stated that he had heard counsel for the petitioners and that he would hear what the Public Prosecutor had to say on behalf of the Crown and pass orders on the application tomorrow morning. In the meantime the accused were remanded to the judicial lock-up. On 4th January 1929, the learned Magistrate passed an order as follows:

I heard the Public Prosecutor last evening. The offences are non-bailable and serious. Prime facie the speeches are revolutionary in nature. They were made on 16th December and Messrs. Saunders and Chanan Singh were assassinated on the following day. Bail rejected.

4. I again point out that on the date in question there were no speeches before the learned Magistrate about which he could state that the speeches were revolutionary or otherwise in nature. Nor is it clear to me how the learned Magistrate was aware of the date of the murders. One of the petitioners applied to this Court on 8th January 1929, and I issued notice to the Crown on that date. I informed the learned Government Ad