1912 (4) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the complaint under Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Vagueness of the sanction.
3. Sufficiency of the complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Misjoinder of charges.
5. True character of the Dacca Anushilan Samity.
6. Connection of individual accused with the Dacca Anushilan Samity.
7. Appropriateness of sentences.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Complaint under Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The appellants contended that the complaint was invalid as it was not made by order of or under authority from the Local Government. The court held that the complaint made under authority from the de facto Local Government was sufficient for the validity of the proceedings. The acts of officers de facto, performed within the scope of their assumed official authority, are generally valid and binding. The court concluded that the sanction by the de facto Local Government and the cognizance taken by the de facto Sessions Judge were sufficient and could not be collaterally attacked.

2. Vagueness of the Sanction:
The appellants argued that the sanction was vague and amounted to a delegation of authority. The court found no substance in this contention, distinguishing the present case from Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor. The sanction specified the persons to be prosecuted, the sections under which they were alleged to have committed offences, and the period of their activity, which was deemed sufficient.

3. Sufficiency of the Complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The court found that the complaint did not set out the facts but merely copied the words of the sections of the Code. This was deemed a colorable compliance with the statutory requirements. However, the court held that as the trial had proceeded and the accused had not objected earlier, the defect could be cured under Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that the defect had not occasioned a failure of justice.

4. Misjoinder of Charges:
The appellants contended that the trial was vitiated by misjoinder of charges under Sections 121A and 123 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found no substance in this contention, holding that the same person could be guilty of offences under both sections. The court also noted that the charges under Sections 122 and 123 were withdrawn, and the trial focused on the charge under Section 121A.

5. True Character of the Dacca Anushilan Samity:
The court examined the official documents of the Samity, including vows, rules, and other documents, and concluded that the Samity had a secret object of a revolutionary nature. The court found that the Samity was a revolutionary society with the ultimate aim of overthrowing the British Government by force. The court also considered the overt acts imputed to the Samity, finding that the Naria dacoity was connected with the Samity, while other incidents were not conclusively linked.

6. Connection of Individual Accused with the Dacca Anushilan Samity:
The court examined the evidence against each individual accused. It found that 14 accused persons were connected with the conspiracy, while the evidence against the remaining 21 accused was insufficient to establish their participation in the conspiracy. The court considered various factors, including the presence of the accused at the Samity premises, their participation in activities, and the discovery of incriminating documents.

7. Appropriateness of Sentences:
The court considered the gravity of the offence, the extent of the conspiracy, the nature of the overt acts, the time elapsed since the suppression of the Samity, and the period the accused had been in custody. The court distinguished between the leaders and less important members of the conspiracy, reducing the sentences for some of the accused. The sentences were revised as follows:
- Pulin Behari Das: Transportation for seven years.
- Asutosh Das Gupta and Jyotirmay Ray: Transportation for six years.
- Gurudayal Das and Bankim Chandra Ray: Rigorous imprisonment for five years.
- Bhupati Mohan Sen Gupta, Prafulla Chandra Sen Gupta, Santipada Mukerjee, Radhika Bhushan Ray, and Kshirode Chandra Guha: Rigorous imprisonment for three years.
- Nisi Bhushan Mitra, Niripendra Mohan Sen Gupta, Gopiballabh Chakrabarti, and Promode Behari Das: Rigorous imprisonment for two years.

The court commended the learned Judge for the care and industry shown in dealing with the case.