GOPAL MARWARI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to deal with these applications in the order in which they have been argued. In the interests of brevity, and in view of the fact that so much has been already said in other decisions of this and other High Courts, I assume a knowledge of the terms of the Ordinance, its amendments, and the circumstances of its promulgation.

(2.) I take first a batch of cases, Criminal Revisions Nos. 654, 662, 663 and 770 of 1942, which all arise out of the same decision of Mr. N. Huda, Special Magistrate, who is also Sub-divisional Magistrate of Samastipur in the Darbhanga district. These applications have been argued upon different points by Mr. Manuk and Mr. S.C. Chakraverty.

(3.) The first point argued by Mr. Manuk is one which has already been dealt with by a Division Bench of which I was a member. The present petitioners were arrested by the police on 3 September 1942, under Rule 132, Defence of India Rules, and sent in custody to the Sub-divisional Officer, who remanded them to hajat up to 17 September. On the 17 the police report had not been received, and the Magistrate postponed the case to the 25th, asking the investigating officer to produce the prosecution witnesses on the date fixed. Similar orders were passed on 25 and 28 September and on 3 October. On 5 October, the Magistrate recorded this order: Police report received. The case is ready. To my tile. Two prosecution witnesses present. Examined and cross-examined two prosecution witnesses. Charge framed. To-morrow for detence.