PRAN KRISHNA CHAKRAVARTY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are before us four criminal appeals and a reference under Section 3(2), Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Supplementary) Act, 1925 read with Section 374, Criminal P.C., which have arisen out of a trial held by a Tribunal consisting of three Commissioners with Mr. E.S. Simpson, I.C.S., as President. The Tribunal was constituted for the trial of thirteen persons who were accused of offences falling within the First Schedule to the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925. Of these accused persons we are concerned with only ten, and their numbers and names as also their convictions and sentences will appear from the following list: [on the next page.]

(2.) It will be noticed that in the numbering of the accused persons given above, Nos. 5, 8 and 10 have been omitted. These three numbers were those of Asoke Ranjan Ghose, Sasadhar Sarkar and Lalu Panda respectively, who after the charges were framed, pleaded guilty to the two charges, one under Secs.395/396, I.P. C, and the other under Secs.395/120-B, I.P.C., that were framed against each of them and were convicted on their own pleas and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years on each of the said charges, the sentences to run concurrently.

(3.) At the very outset and before dealing with the case itself we desire to acknowledge the immense assistance we have derived from the judgment which the Commissioners have recorded in this case. The case involved consideration of a multitude of events and incidents, which on account of their diversity, complexity and ramifications are not quite easy to arrange or remember in their order, and spreading as they do over a wide area with simultaneous happenings at different places and as concerning different individuals or groups of individuals, present no inconsiderable difficulties as regards their proper arid correct appreciation. But the learned Commissioners have been able, in their judgment, to present the case in all its details with perfect accuracy and perspicuity and to note every point in it, which may conceivably be worth considering, in its true perspective and with an amount of fairness and reasonableness which deserves to be highly commended. For the purposes of the case, in the form in which it has come up for consideration and in view of the limited nature of the controversy that exists at the present stage, only a bare outline of the prosecution case and not too many of the details need be set out.