EMPEROR Vs. ATTA MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As this is a capital case, and as the conviction took place so long ago as February last, their Lordships think it best to give their reasons for the conclusion at Which they have arrived, without taking further time to put them into writing.

(2.) The appellant's conviction and sentence having been confirmed on appeal, he applied to their Lordships la July, for special leave to appeal. His petition was allowed, his point being in substance that he had been convicted without having had a fair opportunity of knowing what the charge was that he had to meet, and particularly of raising defences other than the one raised, or of relying on any circumstances which would have reduced the offence to a minor one. Under those circumstances their Lordships did what they rarely have occasion to do, and advised His Majesty in Council to grant special leave em abundanti cautela, so that it might be discussed at length whether he had in truth been deprived of so important an opportunity.

(3.) Mr. Morey has put the case: before their Lordships, as he always does, with great clearness and fairness. He complains that the charge recorded was that Atta Mohammad and a number of others, seven in all, were members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and that in prosecution of a common object and in furtherance of a common intention, one of the members, Atta Mohammad, caused the death of Ghulam Muhammad, and all were thereby, under Secs.149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, guilty of causing the death of Ghulam Muhammad, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 802,149, 148 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 34 was introduced by way of amendment or addition afterwards. The phraseology of the charge is common, but it is true that of these sections which are mentioned one after another, some refer to the substance of the offence, and others, or one, at any rate, of them, to the punishment of the offence,