EMPEROR Vs. RADHA RAMAN MITTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut, arising out of the following facts: The trial of P. Spratt and others under Section 121-A, I.P.C., commonly known as the Meerut Conspiracy Case, is proceeding in the Additional Judge's Court. One of the accused in that case, namely R.R. Mittra, applied to the Judge for permission to visit his widowed sister who was lying seriously ill at Calcutta. The Judge forwarded the application to the District Magistrate with the remark that if and when the Local Government or the Government of India should decide to send the applicant, or allow him to go, to his house, then it would be for the Court to consider the question of dispensing with his attendance under Section 540-A, Criminal P.C.

(2.) On the afternoon of 26 April 1930 the Judge received, through the usual official channels, an order from the Government of India stating: The Government of India agree that Radha Raman Mittra, an undertrial in the Meerut Conspiracy Case, may subject to the orders of the Court be permitted to visit Calcutta to see his sister who is ill, provided the Judge is satisfied that the absence of the accused during trial will not cause any delay or invalidate any part of the proceedings, that the accused is represented by counsel during the whole period of his absence, and he gives an undertaking that he will not attempt to engage in any kind of propaganda during his absence from Meerut.

(3.) R.R. Mittra thereupon petitioned the Judge to dispense with his attendance in Court for 15 days, so as to enable him to visit his sister at Calcutta, and gave an undertaking that he would be represented during his absence by two advocates whom he named, and that he would not engage in any kind of propaganda during his absence. The Judge then passed an order on the same date, 26 April 1930, dispensing with the applicant's attendance under Section 540-A,. Criminal P. C, for a period of 15 days subject to the conditions above mentioned. Subsequently the Judge had to reconsider the provisions of Section 540-A in connexion with a similar application for leave of absence made by another accused in respect of whom the Government of India had passed a similar order. R.R. Mittra's application had not been opposed by counsel for the Crown, and the Judge by his order of 26 April had allowed the application somewhat hastily. Upon further consideration he felt grave doubt whether that order was strictly justifiable under Section 540-A. If the order were held to be incorrect, then the question arose whether the error or irregularity was our able under Section 537, or whether he should recall the witnesses whose evidence had been recorded in Mittra's absence.