EMPEROR Vs. CAMATHEWS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Parganas-in the case of one C. A Mathews. C. A. Mathews was tried by (he learned Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Parganas sit-ting with a jury on a charge of conspiring with a number of other persons to dishonestly and fraudulently induce intending candidates for the post of travelling ticket checkers in the E B. By. administration to deliver moneys to him by deceiving these persons into a belief that they would on such delivery receive appointments on a monthly pay of Rs. 30 and an allowance of Rs. 15. He was further charged with conspiring with the-same persons to cheat a number of persons by obtaining from them moneys as. gratification other than legal remuneration from intending candidates for the post of travelling ticket checkers in the said railway, after deceiving them into a belief that they after the delivery of the money would get appointments as stated in the first charge. The jury by a majority of three to two found the accused5 not guilty. The learned Additional Sessions Judge being of opinion that the accused was guilty under Section 120-B read with Section 161, I. P.C. has referred the-case to this Court. It will be seen that originally Mathews was being tried by the Police Magistrate, Sealdah, jointly with a number of other persons who were alleged to be his coconspirators. Mathews then claimed to be tried as a European British subject and hence he was committed to Sessions and has been tried alone.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is briefly this: The accused is a sub-officer of the E.B. Ry. and was in charge of the travelling ticket inspection section of the railways. He with a number of other persons who conspired with him induced a large number of persons to give him various sums of money on the pretext that they would be appointed as travelling ticket checkers. These persons worked for various periods of time on the railway and in the month of September 1927, their services were dispensed with. The case for the prosecution is that Mathews had no authority to make such appointments, that these persons were not properly speaking appointed at all by the railway and that Mathews took from these persons various sums of money as a consideration for giving them the appointments. The case of the defence as set forth by Mathews in his statement in the Sessions Court was that the appointments of almost all these persons had been sanctioned by the Chief Auditor and that he never took any money from them as a reason for their appointments in the railway. It is further suggested by the learned Counsel for Mathews that these persons whom he appointed were unpaid probationers and that when their work was found unsatisfactory their services were dispensed with. I say advisedly that this was a case of counsel, because this portion of Mathew's case finds no place in his statement to the" Court and is inconsistent with it. There is no suggestion in Mathews statement in the Sessions Court that they were appointed as unpaid probationers.

(3.) I shall first of all deal with the two points of law that arise in this case. The first point deals with the admissibility of the evidence of Mr. W.F. Milne, the Chief Auditor. The facts are these: Mr. Milne was examined as a witness in the Court of the Police Magistrate at Sealdah. At that time apparently the case was being treated as a warrant case and Mathews had been tried together with the other accused. At the close; of Mr. Milne's evidence the accused were called on to cross-examine him. This they refused to do. The reason for calling on them at that time to cross-examine Mr. Milne when the charge had not been framed was that Mr. Milne was very ill and was proceeding to England shortly, which he actually did on 2nd May. Subsequently Mathews made an application to be tried as a European British subject. This was allowed and the result was that he was committed to Sessions as I have already stated.