Judgement

Appeal (No. 27 of 1943), by special leave in forma pauperis, from a judgment of the High Court (December 18, 1942) confirming the conviction of the appellant of the murder of his uncle, Nanhu, under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of death passed on him by the Sessions Judge of Rohtak (August 15, 1942).

The validity of the conviction was challenged before the Board on two grounds, namely, (1.) that the appellant had been illegally arrested ; and (2.) that the court which tried him had no jurisdiction to do so. The following facts are taken substantially from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. First, with regard to the arrest of the appellant, he was not a British subject, but was a native of the State of Jind, in which he resided. The murder with which he was charged was committed in a train while it was running between two stations on the Southern Punjab Railway within the State of Jind. By an agreement entered into between the British Government and the State of Jind in 1900 the Rajah ceded to the British Government " full and exclusive power and jurisdiction of every kind over the lands in the said State which " are or may hereafter be occupied by the Southern Punjab " Railway .... and over all persons and things whatsoever " within the said lands " (Aitchisons " Treaties,” 5th ed., vol. I, 282, No. LI.). The body of the deceased was discovered on October 15, 1941, in a train at Kinana Station in Jind State by a constable of the British India railway police. At Jind, the next station, he reported his discovery to a Sub-Inspector of the British Indian railway police. The latter undertook the investigation of the matter and prepared a first information report. The body was taken next day to Rohtak, within British India, for post mortem examination. On October 18, the Sub-Inspector arrested the appellant at a place in the State of Jind outside the railway. He produced the appellant on the same day before the District Magistrate of Jind, who remanded the appellant to the custody of the police of the State of Jind, by whom the appellant was temporarily transferred to the British Indian railway police for investigation. On the following day a Sub-Inspector of the Jind police joined the investigation. On October 22 the Sub-Inspector of the railway police conveyed the appellant to Rohtak. A confession by the appellant was recorded by the Magistrate there, who thereafter remanded the appellant to the judicial lock-up. On January 14, 1942, the appellant, described as now confined in the judicial lock-up, Jind, was formally extradited and sanction was given by the Nizamat Jind for him to be handed over to the authorities of Rohtak District. That was duly effected, and the appellant was brought to trial and convicted at Rohtak, as already stated.

With regard to the second point, as to the jurisdiction of the trial court to try the appellant for the offence charged, in the Gazette of India of July 5, 1924, there appeared a notification by the Governor General in Council that, for the purposes of criminal jurisdiction, within the lands occupied by the railways specified in the first column of an annexed schedule and lying within the States specified in the second column the court mentioned in the third column should exercise the powers of a District Magistrate. The following is an extract from the schedule as it appeared in the Gazette — The Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur.

6. Southern ..

Punjab

Railway

Main Line.

Gaddarbaha Patiala

Budhlada

Budhlada Patiala

Jind

frontier

near Uchana.

Jind Jind ..

frontier

near

Uchana-

Karainthi.

The Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak.

..

The portion of the Southern Punjab Railway with which this case was concerned was that described in the first column as " Jind frontier near .Uchana—Karainthi " ; in the second column it was shown as lying within the State of Jind ; in the third column, where the appropriate court should be entered, there were two dots. The appellant said that t