MUTHUKUMARSAWMI PILLAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1?08, for an offence punishable under Section 121A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J., and Ayling, J.,) convicted the first seven and the 14th accused of the offence charged under Section 121A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran Nair, J.,) convicted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires further consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public Prosecutor, appeared for the Crown at the trial, raises a preliminary objection that the Letters Patent do not authorize the grant of a certificate in a case tried by a Special Bench appointed under the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908. His contention is that cases under the Act must be dealt with in accordance with the special procedure prescribed by the Act and that there is no provision in it for a review of judgment either on a certificate from the Advocate-General or otherwise. The Act, however, does not profess to lay down complete rules of procedure: the ordinary procedure has to be followed except in so far as it is modified by the Act: there is nothing in the Act to modify the ordinary procedure in this particular respect: Clause 26 of the Letters Patent gives power to the High Court on the Advocate-General s certificate to review in every case mentioned in Clause 25 of the Letters Patent, i.e., in "any criminal trial before the Courts of original criminal jurisdiction which may be constituted by one or more of the Judges of the said High Court.", The present trial satisfies these conditions and is, therefore, open to review on a certificate granted by the Advocate-General.

(2.) The points of law which are certified as requiring further consideration are stated as follows in the certificate of the Advocate-General: 1. That in my judgment the opinion of the majority of the Court that the evidence of an accomplice need not be corroborated in material particulars, before it can be acted upon, and that it would be open to the Court to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice if the Court was satisfied that the evidence was true, requires to be further considered; and it requires to be farther considered whether Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 114, illustration (b), does not merely intend to lay down that a conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal where the presumption of untrustworthiness attaching to the evidence of an accomplice is rebutted by special circumstances. 2. That in my judgment the opinion of the majority of the Court that the previous statements of an accomplice can legally amount to corroboration of the evidence given by him at the trial should be further considered.

(3.) That in my judgment the opinion of the majority of the Court that the statements made by P.W. No. 6 and P.W. No. 12 to P.W. No. 31 were made to an authority legally competent to investigate the facts within the meaning of Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, should be further considered.