1932 (12) TMI 8 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Ordinance 2 of 1932 for conspiracy to commit dacoity and preparation for dacoity.
2. Examination of an approver after trial commencement.
3. Arrest of accused at a railway station with incriminating items.
4. Arguments regarding innocence and lack of evidence by the appellants.
5. Corroboration of approver's testimony with arrest circumstances.
6. Contention on the validity of proceedings before the special Magistrate.

Analysis:
1. The case involved four accused tried under Ordinance 2 of 1932 for conspiracy to commit dacoity and preparation for dacoity. The special Magistrate convicted them, with sentences ranging from three to five years. An approver's testimony implicated the accused in a conspiracy to commit dacoity at a specific location. The police arrested the accused at a railway station with incriminating items like weapons, false moustache, and sketches of the targeted house.

2. The approver's examination post-trial commencement raised procedural concerns. However, the appellants' vague excuses lacked supporting evidence. The approver provided a detailed account of the conspiracy involving the accused, establishing their familiarity with each other.

3. The appellants' defense of innocence, such as seeking employment or lack of association with incriminating items, was deemed unsubstantiated. The approver's testimony, corroborated by the arrest circumstances, indicated the accused's involvement in the planned dacoity.

4. The contention challenging the special Magistrate's proceedings centered on the tendering of pardon to the approver, potentially necessitating trial transfer to a Court of Session. However, the Ordinance's provisions, aligning with the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowered the special Magistrate to conduct the trial, dismissing the appeal against the proceedings' validity.

5. The corroboration of the approver's testimony with the arrest circumstances and incriminating items strengthened the case against the accused. Despite challenges to the proceedings' legality, the court upheld the convictions under Ordinance 2 of 1932, emphasizing the consistency of the special Magistrate's actions with the legal framework.

6. Both judges, Rankin and L.W.J. Costello, concurred on the dismissal of the appeals, affirming the special Magistrate's conviction of the accused for conspiracy to commit dacoity and preparation for dacoity under Ordinance 2 of 1932.