(1.) Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 185 and 186 are connected and are applications for bail together with a prayer for stay of proceedings. It appears that the two applicants appeared before election commissioners and gave evidence. The commissioners came to the conclusion that they were respectively guilty of forgery and perjury, and started proceedings under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court in revision held that Court not being a civil, revenue or criminal Court, had no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 476, but that there was nothing to prevent the commissioners from filing a complaint. Their report to the criminal Court was treated as a complaint. The applicants were accordingly prosecuted, but acquitted by the trying Magistrate. On appeal by the Government to this Court, the Bench hearing the appeal came to the conclusion that the acquittal was improper and that the accused persons were guilty. The appeal was accordingly allowed and they were convicted and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment each. There was a further order directing Ram. Saroop accused-respondent to pay the costs of the Government.
(2.) Before surrendering and before, any appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council was actually filed, the accused applied to this Court for bail on the ground that they had sent instructions to a Solicitor in England for lodging a petition for special leave. The High Court naturally refused to entertain the application so long as the accused had not surrendered. After information had been received that they had surrendered the Bench dismissed the application but without prejudice to the right to bring an other application in the event of special leave being granted by the Privy Council,
(3.) It now appears that a petition for special leave has been lodged, but owing to the vacation it has not yet come up before their Lordships and is not likely to be considered before October next. The accused have accordingly applied afresh for being released on bail.