SHYAMA CHARAN BHARTHUAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals from convictions by the Additional Sessions Judge of Gaya at one trial have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment. The argument on behalf of the appellants has been conducted mainly by Mr. 8. N. Sahai who appears, in appeals Nos. 332, 335 and 334 and by Mr. Baldeo Sahai who appears for Satruhan Saran Singh, an appellant, in appeal No. 531. The Advocates representing the other appellants have adopted the argument advanced by these senior Advocates.

(2.) On March 20, 1933, Rai Sahib Ajit Kumar Ganguli, Inspector of Police, filed a complaint before the District Magistrate of Gaya against 19 persons under Section 121A, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 120B of that Code read with Secs.19(e) and 19(f) and 20, Indian Arms Act, and under Section 120B read with Sections 392 and 395, Indian Penal Code, accompanied by the sanction of the Local Government under Section 196, Criminal Procedure Code, to the prosecution under Section 121A, Indian Penal Code, and the previous sanction of the District Magistrate of Gaya to the prosecution under Secs.19(e) and 19(f) read with Section 120B, Penal Code.

(3.) After inquiry by a Special Magistrate seventeen of the accused were committed to the Court of Session on charges (1) under Section 121A, Indian Penal Code, of having during the years 1929 to 1933 at Gaya, Palmerganj, Daltonganj, Benares, Patna and Calcutta, conspired among themselves and with fifteen other persons named to deprive the King-Emperor of the sovereignty of British India or to overawe by means of criminal force or show of criminal force the Government of India and the Local Government; (2) under Section 120B inasmuch as the object of the said conspiracy was to commit dacoity, being an offence punishable with transportation for life, and (3) under Section 120B inasmuch as the object of the said conspiracy was to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than two years, namely (a) robbery, and (6) offences under Section 19(e) and 19(f), Indian Arms Act. Several of the accused were also charged with specific offences committed in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, to wit, Shyama Charan (or Sham) Bhartuar, (28), Sahadeo Singh (20) and Kesho Prasad (27) under Section 19(f), Arms Act, of illegal possession during the years 1931 to 1933 at Gaya of revolvers including the weapon Ex. 6 without a license; Jagdeo Lohar (33) under Section 19(f) and 19(a), Arms Act, for being, at his home at Atrauli, in illegal possession on February 13, 1933, of parts of guns and of manufacturing and repairing arms; Lala Prasad, under Section 19(f), Arms Act, of having been on August 2, at Gaya in illegal possession of ammunition; "Mahant" Bhagwat Das (22) under the same provision of having been on January 16, 1933, at Pahsi Kothi in Gaya, in illegal possession of the pistol, Ex. 2, the revolver Ex. 6 and the five cartridges; Ex. 7 : Mithilesh Kumar Singh (27) under the same provision of having on January 19, 1933, at Jamhor in the Gaya District being in illegal possession of five live cartridges; Sahadeo, Satrunan (26) and Deodhari (35) under Section 399, Indian Penal Code, of having on March 8, 1933, at Palmerganj in Gaya District made preparations for committing a dacoity of postal cash; and Biswanath alias Birendra (18), Sayamnath Tandon or Malaviya (16) and Jagdeo Malaviya (17) of having under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, committed robbery of a postal bag from mail- runner Basrath Dusadh at Sadignur (Khizrsarai) in the Gaya District.