SUDHA SINDHU DEY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application relating to an interview with an accused person which was originally made to me in chambers sitting as a vacation Judge on the Criminal Side of this Court. It was then coupled with another application for bail. After an adjournment the bail application was dismissed. According to the report which has reached me from the District Magistrate the petitioner is in custody accused of a very serious crime. He is charged with the crime of dacoity with double murder. This dacoity is said to have been under-taken for the purpose of obtaining funds for revolutionary or terrorist purposes.

(2.) I was particularly anxious to obtain in full the explanation of the learned District Magistrate of Hooghly, who made the order, because I felt that possibly a very serious principle was involved. The order to which exception is taken was in regard to an interview between the accused and his counsel. It was to the following effect:. This (the interview) may be allowed in the presence and hearing of a police officer as the case is still under investigation.

(3.) It is interesting to note that the original order was written without the words "and Searing" forming a part of it. These words were interpolated above the line. I am told by the petitioner's counsel this was done at the request of the police representing the prosecution, but the learned Magistrate in his report has not dealt with this point. What actually happened appears to have been this: When counsel went to see his client in custody there were a number of police officers in the room and it was impossible to take the accused's instructions or advise him without the police officers hearing every word that was said. Now it seems to me that, due no doubt to overzeal, the Magistrate in making this order infringed two elementary but cardinal principles of British Criminal Jurisprudence. They are these;