NIL RATAN GANGULI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the accused Nil Ratan Ganguli has preferred the appeal from jail against the conviction and sentence passed upon him by a Special Magistrate in the District of Hooghly acting under Section 39(1), Ordinance 2 of 1932. The case was one in which the charges were laid under Section 19(f) and Section 20, Arms Act. There were two accused originally and the case against them was that this accused Nil Ratan had handed over to Upen Bhumij alias Upen Singh a revolver and afterwards to Upen's wife some cartridges in order that those might be concealed and kept on his behalf. Both the accused persons made confessions, the confessions being recorded on 17 January 1932. One of the accused was made an approver and the case in the end was held to be amply proved by the Magistrate. The Magistrate found as regards the present accused who gave his name and the occupation as that of a Congress worker, that he used to live in the Congress office and that his meals were supplied by different persons of the village Majdah; and the Magistrate thought that the accused acquired great influences over the villagers, so much so, that when the Sub-Inspector in charge of the case came to investigate into it he found great difficulty in getting witnesses to sign their names in the search list. At the trial, the present accused stated in his examination under Section 342, Criminal P.C, that his confession was true and he set up the case that he had found this revolver and the cartridges wrapped up in a piece of cloth near a railway station some four years ago, that he kept them buried and that at the time alleged he went to Upen's bari and made over to him the revolver and the cartridges wrapped in a piece of cloth. The accused disputed certain evidence to the effect that the cartridges as distinct from the revolver had been handed over to the wife of Upen; but that is the evidence. On being asked if he wanted to say anything else, he said: I don t want to say anything else. I want heavy punishment for freedom first .

(2.) In his memorandum of appeal to this Court, the appellant having been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment says: I am guilty. The sentence passed upon me under Section 20, Arms Act, has been heavy. I therefore pray that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to reduce my sentence.

(3.) The sentence which has been inflicted by the Magistrate is the extreme sentence permissible under Section 20, Arms Act. The Magistrate gives us his reasons for this that there are no extenuating circumstances in the accused's favour and that when his statement was taken under Section 342, Criminal P.C, he showed a very defiant attitude and boldly challenged the Court to pass a heavy sentence and said "freedom first." In these circumstances, we find that the sentence having been passed on 5 February 1932 the appeal was not lodged from jail until the 28 March following whereas by Section 39, Ordinance 2 of 1932, which was a very recent Ordinance having come into force in the beginning of the present year a distinct provision is made that an appeal in such a case as this shall be brought within seven days. Accordingly, when this matter was examined first in the office, it was referred to me and the question of admission was sent to be dealt with by the Criminal Bench. The Criminal Bench however did not hear any argument or decide any question so far as I know, but the learned Judges recorded the order: This appeal will be heard on the question of sentence only. Let the record be sent for and the usual notices issue.