EMPEROR Vs. CHATURBHUJ SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I need only say that I entirely concur in the findings which my learned brother is about to deliver as the judgment of the Court, but I desire to dissociate myself from any reliance on American rulings which are of no authority in this country and in my opinion have no value, except in so far as they depend on the prior decisions of English Judges which are in themselves sufficient authority for the view we have taken. I may also point out that in the case of Queen-Empress V/s. Javecharam (1894) I.L.R. 19 Bom. 363 the Judges cited with approval the English cases upon which we have relied in this case; and, in my opinion, it would be very easy to distinguish that ruling from the present case on the facts, and it, therefore, would not be necessary to dissent from it, although I agree with my learned brother that it is opposed to the recent ruling in Rex V/s. Bichley (1909) 2 Cr. App. Rep. 53 : 73 J.P. 239.

(2.) With regard to the order on a similar unreported reference in Chambers, which has been referred to before us, I would point out that the matter was not argued before the learned Judges, and the order is merely "that for the reasons given by the Sessions Judge the conviction and sentence are set aside." Those reasons having, upon an examination of all the authorities and on a full discussion of the question by learned Counsel, turned out to be unfounded, I do not think it necessary to regard this order as a ruling of the Court on a point of law.

(3.) Doss J. This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpore, under Section 438 of the Criminal-Procedure Code, recommending that the conviction and sentence on the petitioner be set aside on the ground that it is based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.