MANMATHA NATH BISWAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Manmatha Nath Biswas was on 27 April last convicted of an offence against Section 19(f), Arms Act-viz., of having in his possession or under his control a revolver and six cartridges on 18 February. He was tried by the Chief Presidency Magistrate sitting as a Special Magistrate under the Bengal Emergency Powers Ordinance, 1931. Another man, Lalit Mohan Singha was tried together with him. The prosecution evidence was as follows: That these two persons had been seen at about 5 p.m. on 27 January standing and talking together for fifteen minutes in front of the office of a newspaper called "Liberty" in the Upper Circular Road, after which they went together to the Sealdah crossing and separated, that some three weeks afterwards, viz., at about 6-30 p.m. on 18 February, they were again seen near to the same spot, but on the east side of the street where there are railway lines; that they loitered and talked together there for about an hour, after which they proceeded northwards along the street till they came to the crossing of Rani Swarnamoyee Road, where there is a petrol shop, that they stopped and loitered in front of that shop till a little before 9 p.m. when Sub-Inspector Chowdhury challenged Lalit and arrested him after a severe struggle: that the appellant Manmatha at once began to run away, but was stopped in a few yards by aconstable and did not resist arrest.

(2.) Both were there and then searched. In Lalit's right hand pocket was found a revolver wrapped in paper and in his left hand pocket were the six cartridges. Upon the appellant Manmatha nothing incriminating was found. The revolver was in working order and the cartridges fitted it. I should here carefully add that Sub-Inspector Choudhury says that the movements of the accused gave him the impression that they were waiting for some one and that opposite the petrol shop they were pointing this way and that moving about restlessly. Sub-Inspector Roy says that opposite the Medical School their movements became suspicious." It appears that they had been pointed out to the officers as persons suspected of smuggling arms. The Special Magistrate convicted both accused under Section 19(f), Arms Act, and convicted Lalit under Section 20 also. He sentenced Lalit to six years rigorous imprisonment under Section 20 and the appellant to two years under Section 19(f) expressly acquitting him under Section 20. As regards the appellant, the Magistrate took the view that: there cannot be a shadow of doubt that he was aware of Lalit's possession of the revolver, His presence at the place in question in Lalits company shows that he was aiding and abetting and sustaining him.

(3.) He does not however convict the appellant of abetment. He says that Section 34, I.P. C, applies to the case apparently because: the circumstances show that they both had the same common object, viz., to possess the revolver for the purpose of committing terrorist crime or for furthering terrorist crime, e.g., by selling the revolver to some anarchist.