HARIHAR SINHA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The history of the proceedings in this matter is briefly this: that three appellants together with two others, Nalini and Gouranga were put on their trial before a Special Magistrate acting under the powers conferred on him by Section 25, Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act, 1932. The procedure to be followed in such cases is that prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.

(2.) The accused were eventually charged with conspiring to commit robbery and dacoity under Sub-section 120-B/392, and 395, Indian Penal Code. At the outset of the proceedings the Public Prosecutor applied to the Special Magistrate for the discharge of Nalini under Section 494, Criminal P. C., so that Nalini might give evidence in the case. As no charge had then been framed against the accused, Nalini was discharged under Sub-section (a), Section 494. Thereupon Nalini went into the box and gave evidence. The accused, who included the three appellants, as they were entitled, reserved their cross-examination until a charge had been framed. Nalini's evidence, although against the accused, amounted to very little.

(3.) Then the Public Prosecutor, evidently of the opinion that Nalini had not told all he knew and was hostile to the prosecution, applied to the District Magistrate to have Nalini re- committed to take his trial along with the accused.