JUDGMENT 1. Singbir Lama, the Petitioner in this case, was convicted by a Magistrate at Darjeeling of an offence under sec. 411, I. P. C., in receiving certain Government currency notes, knowing them to be stolen, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge. A rule was granted calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why this conviction should not be set aside on the ground that it proceeded on evidence taken on commission which there was no jurisdiction to issue. In the case in question the currency notes are said to have been stolen in British territory and they were disposed of by the Petitioner in Nepal. It was necessary before a conviction could be had to prove that the Petitioner was dealing with the notes in that territory. 2. When the case was originally tried, the evidence of certain persons resident in Nepal was obtained to prove the cashing of the notes in Nepal by the Petitioner. For reasons, as to the soundness of which we need express no opinion, the proceedings were quashed, and the trial begun again de novo. The persons who resided in Nepal were unwilling or unable to attend the second trial accordingly application was made to the Magistrate for the issue of a commission to take their evidence under sec. 503, Cr. P. C. This was at first refused on the ground that there was no jurisdiction to issue a commission. Afterwards however, in consequence, it is stated, of an opinion which was placed before the Magistrate, the commission was issued. The question for us is, whether this commission could legally be issued. Sec. 503 (1) regulates the issue of a commission within British India. Sub-sec. (2) provides for the case in which the witness resides in the territories of any "Prince or Chief in India in which there is an officer representing the British Indian Government." 3. It is conceded in the present case that the whole is to be determined by the answer to the question, Is Nepal in India ? If it is, the conviction stands: if it is not, the rule must be made absolute. 4. The definition of India is to be found in the General Clauses Act, sec. 3, sub-sec. 27. It is conceded in the present case that the whole is to be determined by the answer to the question, Is Nepal in India ? If it is, the conviction stands: if it is not, the rule must be made absolute. 4. The definition of India is to be found in the General Clauses Act, sec. 3, sub-sec. 27. The onus lies on those who allege that the evidence was properly taken to approximately establish that Nepal comes within India as defined by that section. In this case that has not been done. No materials have been placed before us from which we could say that Nepal is in India. The Crown therefore in showing cause against the rule has not discharged the onus placed upon it. We therefore must make the rule absolute, but in making the rule absolute we expressly guard ourselves against being supposed to decide that Nepal is not in India. All that we say is that on the materials which are before us in this case we are unable to say that it is in India, and on that ground and that ground only, we make the rule absolute. 5. The Petitioner must be released from his bail. The fine, if levied or so much thereof as has been levied, will be refunded. No. 895. The rule in this case was granted on the same grounds as that in No. 853 and relates to the conviction of a person who was concerned in the same transaction, for the reasons given in our judgment in No. 853 we make it absolute and direct that the Petitioner be discharged from his bail and that the fine, if levied or so much thereof as has been levied, be refunded.