JUDGMENT Jenkins, C.J. - Forty-six accused have been committed to this Court for trial under sec. 6 (b) of Act XIV of 1908, and the charges against them are under secs. 121-A, 122 and 123 of the Indian Penal Code. Of these the principal charge is that under sec. 121-A, of conspiracy to wage war against His Majesty the King-Emperor, and deprive the King-Emperor of the sovereignty of British India, and to overawe by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Government of India, as by law established. The charges under the other sections are subsidiary, and have not been discussed before us. The period of the conspiracy, as charged, is "between the Christian years 1905 and 1910 both inclusive," and the accused are charged with having conspired at Sibpur in the District of Howrah, and at other places in British India. 2. Of the 46 accused so charged, Bhuban Mukherjee is alleged to be of unsound mind, and consequently incapable of making his defence, and an application has been made to us, under sec. 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As against him we have directed an adjournment of the trial subject to any objection that may be taken on his behalf. 3. The accused, Satish Chander Mitter and Haripado Adikary, have been discharged for want of jurisdiction, by reason of the failure of the prosecution to observe the provisions of sec. 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused, Bimola Deb, has been acquitted at the instance of the prosecution, on the ground that there was no case against him. 4. The case against Kiran Rai has been dropped, not for lack of evidence, but because his mental condition appeared to be such that the prosecution against him could not properly be continued; and, in adopting this course, Mr. P. L. Roy was influenced, and properly influenced, by the fact that this accused had already been sentenced to eight years' rigorous imprisonment for the Haludbari Dacoity, which is alleged to be a part of this conspiracy. 5. Counsel for the Crown also determined not to proceed with the prosecution against Jotindra Nath Mukerjee and Nibaran Mazumdar alias Karuda, as the relevant evidence he was able to adduce against them was not sufficient to support a conviction. 6. 5. Counsel for the Crown also determined not to proceed with the prosecution against Jotindra Nath Mukerjee and Nibaran Mazumdar alias Karuda, as the relevant evidence he was able to adduce against them was not sufficient to support a conviction. 6. The case for the prosecution is that the accused were members of a vast conspiracy, organized and working in secrecy, and aiming at the overthrow of the British Government: that, though the period of the conspiracy mentioned in the charge was between 1905 and 1910 both inclusive, the movement commenced earlier: that the principal centres of the conspiracy were Calcutta, Sibpur, Kidder pore, Nattore, Hughly, Bankura, Midnapur and Jessore: that the scheme of the conspiracy required the collection of men, arms and money, and that an actual start in this direction was made: that men were recruited and arms and ammunition collected, that to obtain funds dacoities were committed, and swadeshi shops were started. As a part of the conspiracy, it is said, many crimes were committed, for the prosecution would ascribe to the conspiracy a number of dacoities attempted or committed, the murder of two police-officers, and one informer, the endeavour made to seduce troops from their allegiance, and other minor offences. Many of these offences have actually been the subject of judicial investigation and adjudication, and several of the accused have already been convicted, acquitted or discharged, in respect of them. Where there has been an acquictal, there has of course been no further discussion, for the acquittal is conclusive, and indeed it would be a very dangerous principle to adopt to regard a judgment of not guilty as not fully establishing the innocence of the person to whom it relates, Rex v. Plummer L. R. [1902] 2 K B 339 7. In other cases we have been compelled, by the course the prosecution have seen fit to adopt to hear the evidence again, in proof of these same offences against the same accused. In other instances completed offences, as for instance, the Netra Dacoity, have not been made the subject of a separate trial, as they could and should have been, but they have been thrown into this case, and we have had to investigate them in this trial. In other instances completed offences, as for instance, the Netra Dacoity, have not been made the subject of a separate trial, as they could and should have been, but they have been thrown into this case, and we have had to investigate them in this trial. It may be that this course was inspired by the idea that, though the evidence at the disposal of the prosecution was insufficient to secure a conviction for the crimes committed, it might serve to secure a conviction for a conspiracy, the proof of which really rested on the establishment of those crimes; there can hardly have been the hope that the Court would be willing to suppose much had been proved, merely because much had been said. Of this however, I am clear, that the course adopted is not to be commended, and, though it may be lawful, it unquestionably is not expedient. The result has been this trial, and with every effort to curtail its length, it has lasted, and necessarily lasted, for months, so that from the arrest of most of the accused a year and more has passed. The seriousness of this is the greater when it is borne in mind that, during the whole of the time, almost all the accused have been in custody, and that until the close of the magisterial enquiry, they were unrepresented by any legal advisers as a result of the application to this case of the special procedure provided by Act XIV of 1908, an Act to provide for the more speedy trial of certain offences." I doubt whether when that Act was passed it could have been contemplated that a procedure was being sanctioned that would render it possible for accused persons to be incarcerated for months without any access to legal advice. 8. To establish their case the prosecution called, in the course of the magisterial enquiry, close on 450 witnesses, all of whom and more have been called or tendered in this Court, while the printed exhibits alone cover upwards of 1,100 foolscap pages. The evidence adduced in support of the prosecution's case is in part oral, in part documentary and in part real. The principal and most important oral evidence is that of the approvers, Lolit Mohan Chakrabarti and Jotindra Nath Hazra, but admittedly their testimony before it can be acted on must be corroborated in material particulars. The evidence adduced in support of the prosecution's case is in part oral, in part documentary and in part real. The principal and most important oral evidence is that of the approvers, Lolit Mohan Chakrabarti and Jotindra Nath Hazra, but admittedly their testimony before it can be acted on must be corroborated in material particulars. The nature and extent of this corroboration is well-settled; there must be corroboration not only as to the crime, but also as to the identity of each one of the accused; and ordinarily it must proceed from an untainted source. This is no technical rule, but one founded on long judicial experience, and this case affords a striking illustration of its wisdom, as will be made clear when I come to a discussion of the approvers' evidence. 9. The documentary evidence consists of books, newspapers, accounts, diaries and letters found for the most part at searches made in the course of this case, or of cognate or relevant cases. We also have before us arms and ammunition that the prosecution seek to connect with one or other of the accused. And finally we have the confessions, of which use is sought to be made under sec. 30 of the Evidence Act against co accused. 10. First, then, it has to be seen whether the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution has been proved. Was there a conspiracy to wage war against His Majesty the King-Emperor and to deprive the King-Emperor of the sovereignty of British India and to overawe by means of criminal force or show of criminal force the Government of India by law established ?" A charge so phrased might, and probably would, to the lay mind, imply a political situation of the gravest character, and it is no doubt partly for this reason that the Legislature has prescribed that a charge of this description shall not be entertained except upon complaint made by order of or under authority from, the Governor-General in Council, the local Government, or some officer empowered by the Governor-General in Council in this behalf. 11. The proceedings in this case have been initiated by complaint made by order of the Local Government: with the policy of that order this Court has no concern. 11. The proceedings in this case have been initiated by complaint made by order of the Local Government: with the policy of that order this Court has no concern. I have hesitated much as to whether it could with any show of reason be said that the evidence has disclosed a conspiracy for so serious an end as waging war against His Majesty, and I have hesitated the more when I have borne in mind the class of men arraigned before us as accused, and the arms that have been disclosed consisting as they do, for the most part, of a few revolvers, some muzzle-loading guns, some antiquated and broken pistols and a handful of arrowheads. Even Lolit when he says that the object was "to make the country independent," adds " there was no immediate hurry." Jotin Hazra seems to have regarded the movement as a means of livelihood, and in proclaiming his repentance he declared that he recognized that all this dacoity business was bad and that he had been worse off since the dacoities than before. Before us he expressed the view that "these dacoities constituted a secret society." Panna Lal who also professes to have been a member of the conspiracy declared in his confession to Mr. Patterson, "all who entered the gang perpetrated swindles in the name of Swadeshi." Here he improved his story. Still the provisions of the law are comprehensive and it does not require very formidable elements either in men or means to satisfy its definition of a conspiracy to wage war. For the conspiracy with which we are concerned no act or illegal omission is necessary; the agreement of two or more will suffice, so that the determination of the Court that a conspiracy to wage war has been established does not imply, as its terms might suggest, the existence of a serious menace to the constitution or the stability of constituted authority in India. And I think it right to say this in explanation of my conclusion that a conspiracy to wage war has been proved. 12. So much is made of the evidence of the approvers and so closely and intimately is the success of the prosecution identified with it, that it will be convenient to discuss its value at the outset of the two principal approvers Lolit is the more important and I will deal with him first. 12. So much is made of the evidence of the approvers and so closely and intimately is the success of the prosecution identified with it, that it will be convenient to discuss its value at the outset of the two principal approvers Lolit is the more important and I will deal with him first. His previous record has nothing to commend it: though he is poor and his family poor, he has frankly admitted that he " has never tried to earn an honest penny." He was arrested in Darjeeling on the 27th of October 1909, and instead of being sent at once to Diamond Harbour, he was kept at Darjeeling "for local enquiry," and did not reach Diamond Harbour until the 2nd November. Then he had interviews with Inspector Shamsul Alum extending over several hours, and though it was understood Lolit was willing to confess even before he left Darjeeling, it was not until the 5th of November that he was taken to the Magistrate to have his confession recorded. No explanation of this delay is forthcoming, and it is a mater both for regret and for comment that the statement recorded by Inspector Shamsul Alum is not forthcoming. No such document could be found. This assurance we, of course, had to accept, but I feel that it might have materially assisted us, had it been possible for the prosecution to place before us either the original record, or a copy of Lolit's first statement to Inspector Shamsul Alum. How such an important document (if it ever existed and all records of its contents have become lost to the Police, it is difficult to understand. That such a statement was recorded seems clear, and Counsel for the prosecution was asked by the Court to produce for our inspection some document from which we could learn what Lolit had said to the Inspector. Though it seemed to me improbable that the police authorities would not have somewhere in their possession either the original or a copy of this statement, Mr. P. L. Roy, after search had been made, informed the Court that he was instructed to say, no record of this statement could be found. 13. Lolit's confession to the Magistrate, Mr. C. C. Chatterjee, is a very remarkable statement, and it is the foundation on which practically the whole of this case is built. 14. P. L. Roy, after search had been made, informed the Court that he was instructed to say, no record of this statement could be found. 13. Lolit's confession to the Magistrate, Mr. C. C. Chatterjee, is a very remarkable statement, and it is the foundation on which practically the whole of this case is built. 14. For the prosecution it is said that this statement is not a full disclosure of all Lolit knew, and this has to be said, for it is silent as to the many matters to which Lolit has deposed before us. Lolit's successive statements to the recording Magistrate, to the verifying Magistrate, before Mr. Duval who conducted the enquiry, and finally before this Court, afford so much room for comment that it is difficult to decide where to begin. His evidence-in-chief before this Court was conspicuous for the assurance with which it was given, and the intimate knowledge of the membership and doings of the conspiracy it professed. Offences and outrages that had baffled the detective powers of the police were explained and claimed by him as the work of the conspiracy, and he has painted himself before us as having a considerable hand in the commission or abetment of dacoities, murder and theft. His knowledge of the personnel of the conspiracy appeared to be extraordinary; before the enquiring Magistrate he gave the names of over 170 persons, indicating in most instances their residences, and yet he has told us he was not an important member of the conspiracy, and to the verifying Magistrate he stated in explanation of his inability to give a particular name and address, "the rule of our Sanity is not to ask the name and residence of any member. On this account I do not know the names and residences of many persons." Nor can the achievement of recounting this list of names and residences be explained by a good memory for facts within his experience, for when confronted in his cross-examination with one of his many inconsistencies all he could say was it is impossible for me to narrate these facts correctly each time." Under the stress of cross-examination the assurance vanished, though he displayed considerable resource as he was dislodged from one after the other of his former statements. It would take too much time to do more than mention a few of the indications of un-trustworthiness his evidence affords. First, there is his denial of the brick burning letter. This letter, dated the 13th February 1910, marked as Ex. H in the case is in Bengalese, and the following translation is ours :-ED. Father, I am in great anxiety, not having had any news for many days. Do not be anxious about me. I have now been out of home three years; I may be away for say two months more. There is no cause for anxiety concerning the case. You have got bricks ready, please begin building the house. I shall, be assured, certainly go and help you two or three months hence. Please give my younger brothers good education-have no anxiety. Send one or two Bengali books for me and reply to this letter. If you do not begin building the house, then prepare bricks again, I shall on my return commence building the house. Do not be anxious on my account. Pray God, that I may soon be able to return home-have no fear-no one will kill me. Government has kept me very well guarded and will do so. Let mother cry no more for me-tell her I shall soon return. Tell the same to my brothers also-let them attend to their studies. "which it is difficult to regard as anything but deliberate falsehood. He may have felt he was safe in this denial, for the falsehood was one that could not have been discovered, but for chance that brought this letter into the possession of the defence, a contingency Lolit could not have foreseen. His ingenious explanation of the letter, when he had to admit its authorship, did not impress me. Then there is the change of his story as to the receipt of Rs. 10 by money-order from Jotin Mukherjee, from which it became necessary to resile when it was discovered that Jotin was at that time at Darjeeling. Next we have him deposing before the Magistrate that he had passed the Entrance Examination from the Diamond Harbour School in 1905, while here he denied that he had made any such statement, and declared that he left when he was promoted to the second class. At one time he says it was his father that paid for his outfit at 15. At one time he says it was his father that paid for his outfit at 15. Darjeeling, at another time that it was Nonie Gopal, and when he was confronted with the variation in his story he promptly said both were true. 16. Then the story of his connection with Benares is remarkable for its changes. At one time he deposes that he went with Horen and Behari Lal, at another that he preceded them: in his examination-in-chief it seemed as though he went there only once, but in cross-examination, he escapes from the difficulty this involves, by saying there was more than one visit. At one time he says he, Horen and Behari Lal lived in Umbica's house at Benares for a fortnight, at another he says he thinks he never made any such statement: at one time he declares that he returned from Benares in 1 1/2 or 2 months, at another after working there for 5 months. His story as to his being sent to Dacca for the Barrah loot is almost as full of contradictions : at one time it is Pabitra and Nonie who sent him on this mission, at another Bimola takes Noni's place: at one time he declares that it was while he was living in Indra Nandi's house that he was so sent, although it appears that the dacoity had not then been committed, at another that it was when he returned from Benares in the autumn of 1908, though the dacoity had then been committed not less than four months before: at one time he was given cartridges and a revolver on this occasion, at another no mention is made of this. Then as to the date of his first coming to Calcutta: before us he declared it was in October 1906, that he first stayed at 46, Machua Bazar Street, that he then moved to the premises of the Calcutta High School, No. 66, Nebutolla Lane; that in Assin or Kartic he was initiated; that he then went to the Yugantar and Chatra Bhandar mess No. 15-1 or 15-2, Bhowani Churn Dutt's Street; that on the very day of his initiation he was entrusted with a revolver to make over to Sakharam Ganesh Deoskar, that on the following day in accordance with instructions, he watched 7, Alipur Lane, and followed a man on a bicycle supposed to be carrying money, and that, after staying two or four days at the Yugantar and Chatra Bhandar mess, he was sent by Indra Nath Nandi to Chedda-pathar. Before the verifying Magistrate, however, he places his visit to Cheddapathar in 1907. It is true that the date in the Magistrate's record appears to have been altered to 1907, but if this alteration was subsequently made, one thing at any rate is clear, the alteration could not have been made by the defence, for the document was in possession of the police and it was only after repeated efforts that Counsel for the defence saw it in the course of the trial in this Court. But more than this, if the alteration was subsequently made, it was one necessitated by Lolit's statement, at the time, for immediately afterwards he says, in the same statement, that, after being two months at Cheddapathar, he returned to Calcutta, and he goes on to describe a long conversation he had as to the Changripota dacoity, and the disposal of the proceeds. And seeing that this dacoity was not committed until December 1907, it is at once patent that if 1907 is a later alteration, it was one necessitated by Lolit's own story. But if October 1907 be taken as the date of his arrival, then all the events prior to that to which he depose,-and they are both many and important,-must have been outside his experience. But if October 1907 be taken as the date of his arrival, then all the events prior to that to which he depose,-and they are both many and important,-must have been outside his experience. If, on the other hand, he came in 1906, then the conversation as to the Changripota dacoity on his return, must be a fabrication, and it is difficult to repel the suggestion, very pertinently made, that it was a fabrication in which he was instructed for the purpose of bringing in this dacoity as the work of the conspiracy. 17. Then there is Lolit's story as to the assistance he gave in securing the murder of Nanda Lal. If Lolit was in Benares in August, then his version as to how he came to know Nanda Lal by sight is false, and with that the whole of his story goes by the board. There are other serious difficulties in the way of accepting his evidence on this point, with which I will deal later, and I will now merely allude to the fact that, though he professes to have watched Nanda Lal's house under instructions from Noni, the house he pointed out to the verifying Magistrate as Nanda Lal's was No. 25, whereas in fact Nanda Lal lived in No. 100-2. Then we have Lolit placing the Musapur dacoity in April, and so placing it, not as an isolated event, but for the purpose of accounting for the abandonment of the second Netra attempt, and yet we know that this dacoity was committed on the 27th February. Then we find that, while he claims an intimate knowledge of those who took part in the Netra dacoity, he points out as parties to it two persons who admittedly had nothing to do with it. 18. I have mentioned here only a few of the many indications which go to show how untrustworthy Lolit is, apart altogether from the discredit that attaches to him as an accomplice or as the worthless character he obviously is. When I come to deal with the details of the case it will be necessary for me to refer to many other such instances, and indeed a close examination of his evidence goes to show that almost all his statements, when capable of being checked, can be shown to be incorrect. When I come to deal with the details of the case it will be necessary for me to refer to many other such instances, and indeed a close examination of his evidence goes to show that almost all his statements, when capable of being checked, can be shown to be incorrect. There can be no question that Lolit has overdone his part, whatever the reason may be: and if it be said that had he been fabricating a false story he would not have fallen into this error, then I would answer in the words of Lord Brougham :- This is a very tender argument before a Court, and too doubtful to justify the Court in placing any considerable reliance on it; for we do find, happily for the ends of justice, that men do fall into these inconsistencies, and by means thereof, the fraudulent character of the evidence becomes apparent." 19. Jotin Hazra, the other approver, it is also urged on behalf of the defence, is, apart from his being an accomplice, an untrustworthy witness. There is certainly little in his general character to commend him, for he seems to have been a ne'er-do-weel, and admits to having been a ganja smoker. He is a man of indifferent education and I was not favourably impressed by him in the witness-box. We first meet with Jotin in connection with the Morehal dacoity; he was arrested on the 5th February, on the 6th February he confessed, on the 29th of March he retracted; he was tried at the Sessions, and in the end he was acquitted on the 1st April 1909. Proceedings were then taken against him under sec. 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code for bad livelihood on the 29th June 1909, and he was ordered to find sureties on the 17th August. He was not finally released till the 11th February 1910 as he could not find sureties before. Prior to the 17th August, however, he had been temporarily released on bail in July, but instead of going to his own house, he went to Kali Babu, a Police Inspector at Uluberia, and told him he would like to confess. But for a reason which has not been explained, the Inspector instead of taking Jotin Hazra to a Magistrate to have his confession recorded, took him to Inspector Shamsul Alum, and left Jotin with him. But for a reason which has not been explained, the Inspector instead of taking Jotin Hazra to a Magistrate to have his confession recorded, took him to Inspector Shamsul Alum, and left Jotin with him. Jotin says he told all, and Shamsul wrote it down, but we have not been placed in possession of what was so recorded. On the 15th of February 1910, he was arrested in this case, and he made a statement to Mr. Forrest on the 17th, two days later. 20. The defence have drawn attention to the fact that, in reference to the confession in the Morehal case, which was subsequently retracted by him, it was Jotin's contention that he had been tutored to make that confession by Behari Lal, and it is urged that it is significant that he should have made his statement to Mr. Forrest immediately after this same Behari Lal became his surety. Jotin's movements while in custody certainly are deserving of attention. I will (sic) his being brought to the presidency jah, where at the time none of the accused were in custody. He was, however, removed from here to the Alipur Central Jail, where the accused then were. This was a few days before he was required to identify them in the Magistrate's Court, and not only was he removed to the Jail where the accused were, but he seems to have eaten and bathed with them. Almost immediately after he had identified the accused, with whom he was concerned, in the Magistrate's Court, he was removed to another Jail. In considering the significance of these moves, it has to be borne in mind that, up to this time, there had been no identification by Jotin. For the defence it is asked, and I think reasonably asked, what is the explanation of all this. None has been vouchsafed, or attempted, and it is difficult to treat the matter as an undesigned coincidence. 21. This will be a convenient place at which to deal with the confessions. 22. Reliance has been principally placed on those of the accused Soiled Dash and Susie Bissau, and these the prosecution would use not only against the persons making them, but also against the rest of the accused. The warrant for this is to be found in sec. This will be a convenient place at which to deal with the confessions. 22. Reliance has been principally placed on those of the accused Soiled Dash and Susie Bissau, and these the prosecution would use not only against the persons making them, but also against the rest of the accused. The warrant for this is to be found in sec. 30 of the Evidence Act, which provides that, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons, is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person, as well as against the person who makes such confession. The language of the section is guarded, and the history of this Act leaves me in no doubt that this section was designedly framed in these terms. While, admissions word which embraces confessions, are by sec 21 relevant and may be proved as against the person making them all that sec. 30 provides is, that the Court may take them into consideration, as against other persons. This distinction of language is significant, and it appears to me that it's true effect is, that the Court can only treat a confession as lending assurance to other evidence against a co accused. Thus to illustrate my meaning, in the view I take, a conviction on the confession of a co-accused alone would be bad in law. This reading of the section appears to me to gain confirmation from the language of sec. 5. 23. Further, I think, that only can be taken into consideration which is a confession, in the true sense of the term, of the offence for which the persons are then being jointly tried. But, in addition to this, the confessions with which I am now dealing, have been retracted, so that, to place any reliance on them against the co-accused would be most unsafe, Yasin v. King-Emperor I. L. R. 28 Cal. 687, 690 (1901).. Counsel for the defence however has gone further, and maintained before us that there are points on which the confessions are absolutely false, and that these are points on which honest mistake was not possible. 24. First, I will examine Susil's confession. 687, 690 (1901).. Counsel for the defence however has gone further, and maintained before us that there are points on which the confessions are absolutely false, and that these are points on which honest mistake was not possible. 24. First, I will examine Susil's confession. He was arrested on the 7th November 1909 at Beilashishi for the Haludbari dacoity, and he confessed on the following 14th of December. He speaks to the presence of Lolit Mohan at Beliashishi 8 or 9 days before the commission of the Haludbari dacoity, which was on the 28th of October 1909, and to his taking two swords away with him. He further speaks to having been initiated by Lolit 4 months before his confession. But Lolit's deposition is that he was not near Beliashishi at either of those dates, and according to his story he was not in Beliashishi after May. Further than that, Lolit in the witness-box never alluded to this alleged initiation, though he was questioned in his examination-in-chief as to initiations performed by him, and mentioned some, particularly those in which he had taken part. So much for Susil's confession. 25. I now come to Soilen's confessions. To begin with, it is pointed out, that while Soiled in his first confession made on the 29th of October, the day after his arrest, gave the name of Ganesh Chandra Dash alone, saying that he did not know the names of all the rest, in his second confession he names all the Calcutta men and Bidhu. This, it is urged, shows an improvement designed to meet the exigencies of the case. Whether this be so or not is not directly material for the purposes of this case. But what has been most vigorously attacked is the third confession made on the 9th and 10th of March after Soiled had been in custody for over four months. In this he purports to give a detailed list of conspirators, even naming 80 men who had not been mentioned by Lolit; he makes repeated reference to Noni Gopal, he gives an account of the Netra dacoity; he implicates some of the accused in the Morehal dacoity, and he deals with a number of other matters. In this he purports to give a detailed list of conspirators, even naming 80 men who had not been mentioned by Lolit; he makes repeated reference to Noni Gopal, he gives an account of the Netra dacoity; he implicates some of the accused in the Morehal dacoity, and he deals with a number of other matters. Not only has this confession, as well as the two which preceded it, been retracted by Soiled, but a careful consideration of its contents, and a comparison of them with other materials in the case lead me to regard this statement as eminently untrustworthy, and I am unable to place any reliance on it against Soilen's co-accused. Without attempting a critical examination of the whole of this confession, it will suffice to refer to two matters. Towards the end of this confession, he throws in the remark that, Noni Babu never keeps any incriminating thing in his house. Now this he says on the 10th of March 1910, while Noni's house had been searched on a previous date, the 20th of January, and nothing incriminating had been found. Then again Soiled almost immediately after this tells us, in the same confession, about the recovery by Noni of cartridges that had been thrown into the tank. It is conceded for the prosecution that this has reference to an incident of which witnesses named Sarna Bewa and Jamini speak. And yet, if Jamini is right in placing the occurrence in Aughran, i.e., November-December, it is difficult to see how Soiled, who was then in custody could have known of it. This, however, is a matter which I will discuss at greater length when I come to deal with the case against Nani. 26. For the prosecution it has been suggested that the verification proceedings in this" case add a value to the approver's evidence and the confessions, and may be regarded as corroboration. With this I am unable to agree; on the contrary I feel that these proceedings are open to much of the criticism to which they have been subjected. 26. For the prosecution it has been suggested that the verification proceedings in this" case add a value to the approver's evidence and the confessions, and may be regarded as corroboration. With this I am unable to agree; on the contrary I feel that these proceedings are open to much of the criticism to which they have been subjected. I refrain from noticing in detail this criticism, as in the view I take, it is not necessary for the decision of the case, nor do I propose to discuss at length the comments that have been made on the methods of identification, though I regret that no satisfactory explanation has been given either of Jotin's being moved to and from the Alipur Central Jail where the accused were lodged, a matter to which I have already alluded, or of the under-trial prisoners having been photographed in Jail by the Police, a procedure for which no warrant or justification has been furnished us by Counsel for the prosecution. Action of this class, if left unexplained, even after challenge in the clearest terms from the defence, is certainlya calculated to occasion some degree of anxiety as to the methods employed in this case. 27. Considerable reliance is placed by Counsel for the prosecution on a series of dacoities committed or attempted, and alleged to be a part of the scheme on which the conspirators embarked. The earliest, according to the prosecution, was a dacoity at the Changripota Railway Station, committed on the 6th December 1907, and followed by dacoities at Sibpur on the 3rd April 1908, at Barrah on the 2nd of June 1908, and at Bighati on the 16th of September 1908. Then, it is said there was an attempted dacoity at Protap-chuck, on 14th October 1908. On the 29th of November 1908, a dacoity is said to have taken place at Raita, and on the 2nd of December at Morehal. In 1909 dacoities are said to have been committed on the 27th of February at Musapur, on the 23rd of April at Netra, on the 27th of July at Maharajpur, and on the 28th of October at Haludbari. 28. In 1909 dacoities are said to have been committed on the 27th of February at Musapur, on the 23rd of April at Netra, on the 27th of July at Maharajpur, and on the 28th of October at Haludbari. 28. The incident which has been described as the Changripotta dacoity occurred on the 6th of December 1907; whether or not it was a real dacoity is not clear, but of this I am convinced, that the evidence does not establish the guilt of the accused, Narendra Nath Bhuttacharjee and Bhusan Chandra Mitter. Shortly after the occurrence, a magisterial enquiry was held, with the result that the accused then before the Court were then discharged. This, no doubt, is not binding on this Court, for the discharge was not equivalent to an acquittal. Still the discharge meant that the Magistrate, after taking the evidence, found that there were not sufficient grounds for committing the accused for trial, and he recorded his reasons for that conclusion. No steps were taken at the time to have this order of discharge set aside, and now more than three years after the event, we are asked to hold that the complicity of the two accused now before the Court has been established. It is not suggested that further evidence has been adduced; on the contrary some evidence which was adduced before the Magistrate, and which appears to have been favourable to the accused, has not been placed before us. The evidence actually placed before us is open to considerable comment, and this, together with the circumstances to which I have alluded, in my opinion clearly requires that we should hold the guilt of Noren Bhuttacharjee and Bhusan Mitter not proved, and the connection of this dacoity with the alleged conspiracy not established. 29. The Sibpur dacoity was on the 3rd of April 1908, and though Lolit refers to it, his evidence in this connection can command no confidence, and Mr. P. L. Roy wisely refrained from placing any reliance on it. 30. Norendra Nath Chatterji, it is true, was arrested on the 4th or 5th of April 1908, but no charge-sheet was submitted and he was discharged. Apart from this, there is no evidence that any of the accused took. part in the dacoity, or that it was the work of those engaged in the alleged conspiracy. 31. 30. Norendra Nath Chatterji, it is true, was arrested on the 4th or 5th of April 1908, but no charge-sheet was submitted and he was discharged. Apart from this, there is no evidence that any of the accused took. part in the dacoity, or that it was the work of those engaged in the alleged conspiracy. 31. The Barrah dacoity was on the 2nd of June 1908, and of the accused before the Court, Kartick Dutt was put on his trial for this offence, but was acquitted. There is no credible evidence to connect any other of the accused or the conspiracy with this dacoity. It is true that Lolit tells a tale in connection with the loot of this dacoity that implicates Pabitra Charan Dutt and Bimola Deb, but Counsel for the Crown informed the Court that he did not rely on this, and. in my opinion, he had very good reason for taking this course. 32. The Bighati dacoity was on the 16th September 1908, and Kartick Dutt's participation in it is placed beyond question by his conviction. Apart from this there is no evidence of direct participation in the affair by any other of the accused. Lolit's attempt to connect certain of the accused with it by means of conversation he overheard, obviously fails. How far this dacoity can be treated as the work of the conspiracy under investigation will be considered when I come to deal with the case of Kartick Dutt. 33. The attempted dacoity at Protapchuck is not brought home by reliable evidence, either to any of the accused or to the conspiracy. Though there is reason to think that the Raita dacoity (November 29th, 1908) was committed by what has been termed respectable men, there is nothing which suggests that any of the accused took part in it, beyond the retracted confession of Susil Biswas, who names Monmatha, Bamapodo and Bhupen. But this obviously cannot take the place of legal proof. 34. The Morehal dacoity was on the 2nd December 1908, and, as I have already said, Monmatha Nath Rai Chowdhry has been convicted as one of the offenders. It is said by the prosecution that Dasarathi Chatterji, Sibu Hazra and Atul Pal were also of the party, and the approver Jotin no doubt names them. 34. The Morehal dacoity was on the 2nd December 1908, and, as I have already said, Monmatha Nath Rai Chowdhry has been convicted as one of the offenders. It is said by the prosecution that Dasarathi Chatterji, Sibu Hazra and Atul Pal were also of the party, and the approver Jotin no doubt names them. Not only, however, is his evidence wholly uncorroborated, but it is at least doubtful whether Jotin was at the occurrence. He tells a story of bursting open a safe with gun powder which cannot have escaped the notice of others, and yet is mentioned by no one; his name does not appear in Monmatha's confession; and though put on his trial he was acquitted at the Sessions. In the circumstances it cannot be fairly said that this dacoity is brought home to any one except Monmatha Nath Rai Chowdhry, though it may be that some of the dacoits were bhadralogs. 35. The Musapur dacoity was on the 27th of February 1909. There is, however, nothing to connect any of the accused with the occurrence. Lolit seeks to connect it with the conspiracy, but his evidence is unreliable. As I have already pointed out he places the dacoity in April, though it occurred in February. 36. The Netra dacoity was on the 23rd of April 1908, and it owes its importance in this case to the fact that it was in connection with this affair that the approver Lolit Mohun Chakravarty was arrested, and it is on his successive statements that the whole fabric of this case practically rests. He ultimately seeks to implicate no fewer than fifteen of the accused in this dacoity either as actors or instigators. The fact of the dacoity is beyond dispute, and if Lolit is to be believed, it was preceded by two abortive attempts. These need not be discussed at any length, nor is it necessary to do more than point out that his evidence as to the second of them is open to considerable doubt, for, while he would place it within the month of April, he states that the attempt failed because the Musapur dacoity interfered, but in fact it appears that the Musapur dacoity was in February. 37. 37. The first information of the Netra dacoity was lodged by Ram Taran Mitra, the owner of the looted house, within a few hours after the occurrence, and what appears there leaves little doubt that the dacoits cannot have been ordinary criminals, and it is peculiarly significant that the dacoits were at that early stage reported to have said, "the money and ornaments that we are taking are meant solely for driving the English root and branch from this country. We are in want of funds, and therefore we are obliged to collect money in this fashion. When the time comes we will return the money with interest." This points very clearly to the purpose and personnel of the party, and is in accord with the allegation that the dacoits were Hindus and the sons of bhadralogs. Though Lolit in his evidence deposes that the dacoits were 21 in all, yet, in the first information it is said there were only seven or eight youngmen. 38. It will be convenient here to recall Lolit's version of the whole affair. After detailing the instructions he received from Noni Gopal Sen-Gupta, he states that he went by train to Dewla, where he alighted at 5-40 or 6-40 P.M. with others, whom he conducted to a field. There five men of Joynagar and Mazilpur met them and about midnight, after the last train from Diamond Harbour had passed, the party proceeded to the scene of the dacoity, Ram Taran Mitter's house, led by Lolit. Arrived at the house of Kali Chakravarti and Madaru scaled the wall, Lolit concealed himself in a drain, two men mounted guard and the house was looted. Then Lolit led them back again past the field, and, after they had gone 2 or 3 miles, the party sat under a tree and took count of the spoil of which a list was made. With certain trifling exceptions the arms and loot were made over to the men of Joynagar and Mazilpur. The rest went in batches of 3, 4 or 5 up to Sangrampur Mat, the men with Lolit being, to use his own words, "Soilen Das, Bistupodo Chatterjee, Atul Mukerjee and, I think, Upen De." This batch went to Magrahat Station and there they got into the third train from Diamond Harbour to Calcutta. 39. The rest went in batches of 3, 4 or 5 up to Sangrampur Mat, the men with Lolit being, to use his own words, "Soilen Das, Bistupodo Chatterjee, Atul Mukerjee and, I think, Upen De." This batch went to Magrahat Station and there they got into the third train from Diamond Harbour to Calcutta. 39. Such in broad outline is Lolit's story of the dacoity as presented to us in the course of his examination-in-chief. He then goes on to describe visits to Sarat Mitter and Noni Gopal, his expedition under Noni's instruction on the following day, which must have been Sunday, the 25th April, his arrival at Mazilpur, and his return in the early hours of Monday with the plunder, accompanied by Chuni Lal Nandi and Rajoni Bhattacharjee. Though there is reason to think that this dacoity was connected with some such conspiracy as is charged in this case, I will reserve for consideration when I come to deal with their individual cases whether the evidence establishes the guilt of Chuni Lal and Rajoni, but against the rest of the accused the imputation that they were in this dacoity fails. 40. The Maharajpur dacoity was on the 27th July 1909. The evidence discloses nothing that serves to connect the offence either with any of the accused or with the alleged conspiracy. 41. The Haludbari dacoity was on the 28th of October 1909, and the accused Soilen Das, Susil Biswas, Atul Mukerjee, Kiran Rai, Gonesh Das, Sailendra Chatterjee, and Upendra Kristo Deb have on a previous trial been found guilty of this offence. The accused, Bidhu Bhusan Biswas and Monmotho Nath Biswas, who were tried with them, were acquitted. One of the principal overt acts alleged in the complaint initiating these proceedings is, "the seduction of and attempting to seduce certain men of the 10th Jats from their allegiance." This, according to the prosecution, was a distinct and complete offence in itself, and it is much to be regretted that it has not been brought to trial as such. However this has not been done, and we have therefore been compelled to try in this case the charge of attempting to seduce the sepoys of the 10th Jats from their allegiance and duty, and of conspiring in such attempt, so that, as far as the present accused are concerned, the judgment of the Court on that charge will be conclusive. The men of the 10th Jats involved in this offence are, according to the prosecution, Surjan Singh, Chunai Havildar, and possibly Ram Gopal; but it is Surjan Singh who figures most prominently in this connection, and the accused whom the prosecution would implicate in this affair are Noren Chatterji, Sarat Mitter, Bhutan Mukerji and Noni Gopal. 42. The specific acts alleged are (1) that Surjan Singh was initiated into the secret society at Bhutan's house at Sibpur, where he and Ram Gopal were taken by Noren Chatterjee, (2) that Surjan Singh was thrice given money, once by Noren Chatterji and twice by Lolit and (3) that these men of the 10th Jats visited Sarat, and were in constant touch with Noren Chatterji. I may say at once that against Noni there is absolutely no evidence; of the payments by Lolit there is not a word of corroboration, and in fact these payments are opposed to Surjan's testimony; for Noren's payment to Surjan we have to depend on the unsupported evidence of Surjan, who was, on his own showing, a party to this alleged criminal transaction. But there is a more serious difficulty in the prosecution's way. One of the witnesses on whom the prosecution principally rely for the story of the initiation, is Ram Gopal, for his evidence at any rate, it is claimed, cannot be depreciated as that of an accomplice. Ram Gopal was a soldier in the 10th Jats, and his evidence is that he left the Regiment in November or December 1908. The exact date must be a matter of record, within easy reach of the prosecution, and no attempt has been made to question the correctness of this date, and so presumably the prosecution accept it as correct. Now, Ram Gopal speaks to the visit with Surjan to Sibpur, and places it 5 or 6 months before he left the regiment, and though it would be wrong to tie him down strictly to this computation of time, it is reasonable to suppose that, according to him, this visit occurred some considerable time before November or December 1908. Here again the prosecution could have fixed the date, as the excursion is said to have been made while Surjan was in hospital with a dislocated knee. Here again the prosecution could have fixed the date, as the excursion is said to have been made while Surjan was in hospital with a dislocated knee. No steps, however, have been taken to show that Ram Gopal was in error, so that here too it is fair to assume that the prosecution accept as correct the time, approximately fixed by Ram Gopal. For what it may be worth, I may point out that it was said to be drizzling at the time of this visit to Sibpur, and this would agree with Ram Gopal's estimate of the time. At the same time the evidence of these Jat witnesses is, that before and after the Sibpur incident, they used to go to Sarat's dispensary at 86-1, Diamond Harbour Road. This is clear from the evidence itself, and is confirmed by the fact that it was this house that Surjan Singh pointed out to the verifying Magistrate. The evidence, however, is clear that Sarat was not living in Diamond Harbour Road at the date of this alleged visit to Sibpur, whether it occurred 5 months or even less than 5 months before November-December 1908. This visit to Sarat's, it has to be borne in mind, is not an irrelevant incident; it is an essential and integral part of the story of the initiation, and the discrepancy, to which I have drawn attention, throws serious discredit on the whole story of the journey to Sibpur, which is in itself improbable. In expressing these definite and positive conclusions in regard to the Jat soldiers, it is right to state that, though they are the conclusions of the Court, they do not in all respects represent our unanimous opinion. But the divergence of view is not such as to qualify the unanimity of our opinion on the essential question whether the accused, alleged to be involved in this incident, are or are not proved to be guilty of the offence of conspiracy with which they are charged. On that we are all agreed. 43. Then it is claimed that the Chatra Bhandar affords strong evidence of the existence of the conspiracy, and is of value as incriminating several of the accused. It came into existence as far back as 1903 as a Students' Co-operative Stores Association, and it is conceded that, in its origin, it was a legitimate trading concern. 43. Then it is claimed that the Chatra Bhandar affords strong evidence of the existence of the conspiracy, and is of value as incriminating several of the accused. It came into existence as far back as 1903 as a Students' Co-operative Stores Association, and it is conceded that, in its origin, it was a legitimate trading concern. In August 1906, it was converted into a limited company, but whether it was before or after this that it was put to unlawful ends has not been formulated by the prosecution. The theory now advanced is, that the conspirators saw in its prosperity a useful instrument for forwarding their ends, and they accordingly captured the Association. The uses to which, according to this theory, the Association was put were, first, to earn money for the conspiracy, secondly, to afford a secure meeting place for the conspirators, and, thirdly, to be the bankers of the cause. But ingenious and attractive as this may be as a theory, it has no foundation in established fact; not one of these three suggestions is proved. But then it is said that a close connection existed between the Chatra Bhandar and the Jugantar, and that, from this the true character of the Chatra Bhandar, is to be learnt. For this reliance is placed on the fact that the proof of the Chatra Bhandar's blue prospectus was printed at the Sumati Printing Works. But it would seem that these printing works belonged to Nikhileshwar Roy Moulick, who was a Director of the Chatra Bhandat, so that the fact on which so much reliance is placed, is capable of an explanation which is not only innocent but probable. And, in this connection, it has to be borne in mind that Nikhileshwar has been conclusively acquitted of participation in the conspiracy set up by the prosecution. It is true that on the Chatra Bhandar prospectus the Jugantar was advertised, but of this an explanation has been suggested, and, in any case, it cannot be overlooked that the Chatra Bhandar had 10 Directors, and that, of these, two have been acquitted of being concerned in the conspiracy, while, of the remainder, it is only against Pabitra that any suggestion of complicity has been made. Moreover, at this time, it has to be remembered, the Jugantar had been in existence some considerable time, its popularity was great, and no objection had been taken to its tone and its teaching by the authorities. Precisely the same considerations apply to the alleged connection with the Mukti Kan Pathe. Then, again, so far as the printing of Chatra Bhandar documents is concerned, it was in no sense limited to the Sadhana Press, but the accounts show that a large amount of printing work was done at other presses, even while the Sadhana Press was in existence. 44. Then it is urged that the Chatra Bhandar is condemned by the books it sold. True it is that Mukti Kon Pathe, Bartaman Rana Niti, and Jatiya Samasya were sold there, but they were not proscribed books; they were sold elsewhere, and it is not suggested that they were only sold at establishments in league with the conspiracy. Nor were the Chatra Bhandar's sales of books restricted to these three publications: on the contrary, it is clearly shown that a large number of different publications was sold to which no exception could be taken. There has been some discussion before us as to whether the three offending publications, to which I have referred, belonged to the Chatra Bhandar, or were merely sold by it in the ordinary course of business, and each side has referred us to the Association's books of account. But such of them as have been produced throw no conclusive light on the point, and as possession of all was taken by the police, the defence cannot be treated as responsible for the non-production of the rest, so all that can be said is that the prosecution have not proved that these publications belonged to the Chatraa Bhandar. I do not overlook the expressions and sentiments contained in the blue prospectus to which our attention has been drawn but giving to them all the force adverse to the Association to which they are fairly entitled, I find it impossible to regard them as establishing the Chatra Bhandar's connection with the conspiracy into which we are enquiring in this case. 45. It is the case for the prosecution that the jugantar was an integral part of the conspiracy. It was started in March 1906, and its origin and its purpose are matters of common knowledge. 45. It is the case for the prosecution that the jugantar was an integral part of the conspiracy. It was started in March 1906, and its origin and its purpose are matters of common knowledge. Its articles and its popularity have been brought to our notice, and the facts show that those who guided its policy managed to select writers possessed of a style so levelled to the popular taste that even street traffic was impeded in the rush of would-be purchasers. Inspector Purna Chunder Lahiri has told us that people were amazed at the inaction of the Government, and the audacity of the paper, and this I can well understand, for notwithstanding its pernicious teachings no step was taken to check it until July 1907. All this may be conceded and regretted, but our concern is to see how far the connection of the Jugantar with the conspiracy we are investigating, and the accused we are trying, has been made good. Taranath's connection with the Jugantar is established but he holds an isolated position among these accused, as does Kartic, who, alone of the rest, is said to have had relations with that paper. Apart from this the accused are not shown to have been connected with the Jugantar in any sense that would justify us in holding that it was a limb of the conspiracy under trial. The mere discovery of copies of the paper at searches proves nothing, for admittedly it had an unusually wide circulation. True it is that the Jugantar was a limb of the Muraripukur Garden conspiracy, but as I will show, that was distinct from the one into which we are enquiring. And this brings me to the prosecution's suggestion that the conspiracy with which we are concerned in this case is a part or branch of that which had its head-quarters at Muraripukur Garden. This was not the case for the prosecution as formulated in the complaint of the 4th of March 1910, on which these present proceedings were initiated; there is no mention there of that conspiracy, and not even a reference; to any of the overt acts which were a part of that conspiracy. And yet this cart hardly have been due to oversight, for that conspiracy and the outrages that belonged to it were a matter of public notoriety. 46. And yet this cart hardly have been due to oversight, for that conspiracy and the outrages that belonged to it were a matter of public notoriety. 46. It was not until the 25th of May 1910, that a reference was made to the Muraripukur conspiracy, or to the accused Taranath and Kartic, who are said to have been intimately connected with it. Now it is well known that the Muraripukur conspiracy was the subject of long and careful police investigation, and of subsequent judicial enquiry and trial, in the course of which a very large number of witnesses was examined and an immense volume of documentary evidence used. No pains were spared to secure an exhaustive enquiry, and yet it is not suggested before us that anything came to light that would establish the connection now sought and it is remarkable that Counsel for the prosecution has been unable to suggest that in any of the mass of document seized at the Muraripukur Garden, there is any trace of the connection now alleged. The suggestion made in Counsel's opening speech that this conspiracy was linked with the Muraripukur Garden conspiracy, through an alleged connection between Kartic Dutt and Hem Das, has absolutely not a title of evidence in its support. And the proposal to connect this conspiracy with the Muraripukur, through Srish Sarkar and Satis Sarkar, and the expedition from Patna to Nepal, are far too fanciful and remote for serious acceptance. 47. Much evidence has been adduced to show association in music, gymnastic exercises and lathi play, and it is on this lathi play that the prosecution have principally relied. But when Counsel was asked to formulate the part played by these lathi exercises in the scheme of the conspiracy, he was unable to advance any suggestion from which much assistance could be derived. It may be that these exercises would conduce to the acquisition of strength, agility, hardihood and discipline, all no doubt qualities useful in war, but it was not and could not be reasonably argued that the contemplated war was to be waged with lathis, or that these exercises standing alone could be treated as evidence of a conspiracy to wage war. To attach sinister significance to the mere association in play or pastimes of those who live in the same village or attend the same school, would, I think, be dangerous, at any rate on the evidence that has been adduced before us. Evidently it did not occur to those who joined in these exercises that they were doing that which would bring them into their present predicament, for there was a complete absence of secrecy, and rather a courting of publicity in the performance of these exercises. The defence are not without a theory as to the significance of this lathi play, but in the view I take, it is unnecessary to discuss it. 48. There is but one further point to which I would desire to allude before I proceed to deal with the individual cases. It is the charge of conspiracy that has been argued before us, and no other, and that charge is single and complete. At the same time there are many accused before us and they are drawn from different parts of the country. These accused have been described by the prosecution, and conveniently described as falling into groups. But it is not open to us to find more conspiracies than one, for there is the highest authority that it is a legal impossibility when several persons are charged with the same conspiracy that some should be found guilty of one conspiracy and some of another. This proposition was accepted by Counsel for the prosecution as one by which the Court must be governed. It is thus only open to us to find one conspiracy, and for the prosecution to succeed against any one of the accused, they must establish by proper and sufficient proof that he is a member of that conspiracy. 49. Any accused not shown to be a member of that conspiracy is entitled to demand an acquittal at our hands, however bad his record may be and however much he may be suspected of this or that offence. Any other view would be intolerable. 50. The case against NONI GOPAL SEN GUPTA rests principally on the testimony of the two approvers, Lolit and Jotin, and if they are to be credited, then this accused is one of the leaders of this conspiracy. Any other view would be intolerable. 50. The case against NONI GOPAL SEN GUPTA rests principally on the testimony of the two approvers, Lolit and Jotin, and if they are to be credited, then this accused is one of the leaders of this conspiracy. But their evidence against him is of the most inconclusive character and relates for the most part to conversations with him, and instructions received from him, and coming as it does from these sources, it has to be scrutinized with care and accepted with caution. No witness corroborates either Lolit or Jotin as to a single detail to which they severally depose, in relation to Noni Gopal, though some have been called and have given evidence as to his taking part in gymnastics, wrestling and lathi play, and as to his association with Bhutan, Bhuban and Madaru a circumstance from which it is obvious that no adverse inference can reasonably be drawn seeing that they are near neighbours and known to each other. 51. The straits to which the prosecution have been reduced in the endeavour to adduce incriminating evidence against Noni, may be illustrated by the testimony as to the finding of cartridges in a tank in the neighbourhood of Noni's house, and in the immediate proximity of a public road. 52. One Sarna Bewa, a woman who describes herself as unemployed and doing no work, tells a story of how she found in the tank where the water was about one foot deep things which apparently were cartridges. She showed them, she says, to a goldsmith named Jamini who told her they were nothing, and that she had better throw them away. She spoke about this to no one but Jamini and following his advice she threw them into a big drain. Jamini too is called and he says Sarna brought to him these things, but he, as puzzled as she, could not make out what they were, and so he advised her, with some inconsequence, to throw them away. It does not appear how Jamini's knowledge of this occurrence came to light, but somehow it did, if we are to believe the evidence and, what is more remarkable, Soilen professes to have known of it all according to his third and final confession, of which he delivered himself on the 10th of March 1910. It does not appear how Jamini's knowledge of this occurrence came to light, but somehow it did, if we are to believe the evidence and, what is more remarkable, Soilen professes to have known of it all according to his third and final confession, of which he delivered himself on the 10th of March 1910. It is worth quoting what he says about this: After relating that one Kishori had 5 revolvers and 200 cartridges kept with him by Noni and that Kishori in fear of a search had thrown them into the tank, he proceeds, Kishori was sent for and when asked for the revolvers he said he had thrown them into the tank The revolvers and cartridges were taken out, but 5 or 6 cartridges remained in the tank. Some fisher-women while fishing got those cartridges, and took them to a goldsmith's shop. The goldsmith tested them and said they were not gold. He did not know they were revolver cartridges, so he returned them to the fisherwomen. Noni Babu heard of this and cleverly managed to get the cartridges back from the fisher women." And in this way Soilen turns to use against Noni the story of Sarna and Jamini According to Soilen the discovery of cartridges must have followed the assault,-ED. See ante, p. 604, col. 1. and this is in harmony with Jamini's version of the affair. Jamini places the discovery in Aughran, and further fixes it by saying it was immediately after the Puja before last, that is the Puja of 1909 which ended on the 24th of October in that year. But in Aughran Soilen was in custody for the Haludbari dacoity, and from that day on, he has remained in custody. How then was he able to introduce into his confession events which happened (if at all) while he was in custody ? When this difficulty was brought to the notice of Counsel for the prosecution he offered two explanations, first, that Soilen and Jamini were speaking to different incidents, and, secondly, that the mention of Aughran was a mistake. The first of these he felt compelled to abandon, and I need not deal with it, so that it is only the second that calls for notice. The first of these he felt compelled to abandon, and I need not deal with it, so that it is only the second that calls for notice. Now, while it was suggested that the mention of Aughran must be a mistake, it was conceded that the reference to the end of the Pujas must be accepted, and this, it was claimed, made Soilen's story possible. The first day after the Pujas was the 25th of October. On the early morning of the 28th of October Soilen was arrested at Mirpur, and must have left Calcutta not later than the 27th. So it is on the 25th, 26th or a part of the 27th that Soilen, according to the prosecution, got this information which he imparts in his confession. And so, according to the prosecution, within this very limited time, Sarna went to Jamini, and taking his advice, threw the cartridges into the big drain, and Noni by some means, which have not been explained, learnt of the affair, and "cleverly managed to get the cartridges back from the fisher women," and information of the occurrence reached Soilen. The imputed cleverness of Noni becomes all the more remarkable in view of the fact that neither Sarna nor Jamini knew they were cartridges, and that Sarna spoke to no one of what she had done, and that she threw them into the big drain. The prosecution theory is not without its difficulties. Soilen however furnishes a much simpler explanation: it is in effect that his confession was false. 53. Now it has to be seen how far the case is advanced by documentary evidence against Noni Gopal. Much reliance is placed on three letters, Exhibits 26 (a), 26 (b) and 332. They were all three written by Noni while he was in jail, the first two on the 28th of March 1910, and the last on the 17th July 1910. The significance of the two letters of the 28th of March According to the evidence of the jailor and two European warders, Noni Gopal had been discovered writing without authority on two pieces of paper, and was depart mentally punished for writing unauthorised letters from jail on private paper. They purported to be letters written one to Dr. Sarat Mitter and the other to jogesh Mitter, who were both fellow-prisoners with Noni Gopal. They purported to be letters written one to Dr. Sarat Mitter and the other to jogesh Mitter, who were both fellow-prisoners with Noni Gopal. There were suggestions in both that the addressees should complain of oppression in jail.-ED. according to the prosecution, is hat they show intimate acquaintance with those to whom they were addressed, and that Noni was even in jail regarded by them as their leader. Noni's previous acquaintance with Jogesh Mitter, to whom one of the letters was addressed, has never been disputed; they were near neighbours. His previous acquaintance with Sarat is denied, and it is urged there is nothing in the letter to him that negatives or even raises a doubt as to this. 54. I agree with this. It has to be borne in mind that Noni and Sarat were arrested as far back as the 20th of January 1910, and that these letters were written on the following 28th of March. During this time these two accused were kept in the same jail, and it is established that the accused while in jail met, and in particular they bathed and had their meals together. Indeed the prosecution repudiates the idea that the accused were subjected to solitary confinement. Then looking at the letters, it is at once obvious that they refer to events after and not before the arrest. Whether the ground of complaint they suggest of police oppression in jail is true or not, is not relevant to this particular issue, and if it were, we have no materials on which to pronounce a definite opinion one way or the other. The suggestion that they point to the esteem in which Noni was held by his co-accused, possesses no importance, and the letter obviously cannot be read as proof of Noni's guilt of the conspiracy with which he is charged. The third letter This letter was sent out of jail by Noni Gopal through a jail-sweeper, who took it to Noni's father who apprehending it to be a trap to entangle him, handed over the sweeper to the Police. The sweeper was prosecuted and punished and thus the letter got into the hands of the prosecution.-ED The material portion of the letter was as follows : Mother, do not think for me. Know it for certain that I shall not return. Mother, my sorrow is even more terrible than yours. The sweeper was prosecuted and punished and thus the letter got into the hands of the prosecution.-ED The material portion of the letter was as follows : Mother, do not think for me. Know it for certain that I shall not return. Mother, my sorrow is even more terrible than yours. You are going to lose one and I am going to lose all. Father is now old and I am going to bid adieu to the family for good My heart breaks as I ponder day and night over the terrible state to which the family will be reduced after a few days. You should tell father and have these few things done in a day or two. Ask father to make a Will. Let him not do anything in my name, otherwise that will be lost. Prepare the Will in such a manner as will save all sides and, at the same time, not do anything in my name. Do it precisely in a day or two. Do not by any means fail to do it. There is no need of incurring any cost for me, because you will not be able to do anything in the case. An enormous cost is required which is beyond your means to meet. A case like this can be managed by 50 or 60 thousand rupees. Where can you get so much money P In the meantime ask father to come and see (me) once. Do one thing for me. Perhaps you remember what I wrote once in a letter. There is a sadhu ireligious man) named Bama Kshepa (mad Rama) at Tarapur. Go where I went towards the end of Kartik last and seek his shelter He will at first try to drive you away, but you must on no account leave him. If he does mercy, may be I shall get release. Or, there is in Calcutta another sadhu, whose name is Khanki Baba. Kulo (Asu) of the Banarji's;ind Jivan Ghosal brother of Noni Ghosal, know his address Pay Rs. If he does mercy, may be I shall get release. Or, there is in Calcutta another sadhu, whose name is Khanki Baba. Kulo (Asu) of the Banarji's;ind Jivan Ghosal brother of Noni Ghosal, know his address Pay Rs. 3 to this man and then I shall get one and-a half rupees Burn this letter after reading it." Exhibit 332, is one written from jail by Noni to his mother on or about the 17th of July, and to appreciate the significance of this letter, and its true meaning, it is necessary to realise the predicament in which Noni then found himself. He had been arrested on the 20th January, just six months before, and during the whole of that period he had been in custody. The procedure of the Special Act had been put in force against him, so that he was unrepresented by Counsel or any legal adviser during the magisterial enquiry, and it has been asserted before us, and not contradicted, that, during that period, neither legal advisers nor friends had any access to him. He must have known that the enquiry was drawing to an end, and that, in its course, an immense number of witnesses had been examined, they numbered in all considerably over 400, and he probably anticipated, as the fact was, that the Magistrate was about to commit the case for trial. He was conscious that he had against him all the resources of the prosecution, and the position was not one calculated to inspire confidence. 55. What is the tone of his letter? I am lost unless I can be defended, and defence is impossible owing to the enormous cost it will involve, a cost that is wholly beyond our resources, unless possibly you can secure divine intervention on my behalf." That I take to be the real meaning of what he writes to his mother, and I am not prepared to say that he was very wide of the mark. In a case so complicated it would have been next to impossible for any tribunal to have mastered unaided the mass of documents and accounts necessary for an adequate presentment of the defence, or to have possessed the knowledge requisite for the cross-examination of the witnesses and particularly of the approvers. 56. In a case so complicated it would have been next to impossible for any tribunal to have mastered unaided the mass of documents and accounts necessary for an adequate presentment of the defence, or to have possessed the knowledge requisite for the cross-examination of the witnesses and particularly of the approvers. 56. I cannot refrain here from digressing for one moment to express to Counsel who have undertaken the defence of the accused my appreciation of their assistance. Their mastery of the details of this case and the aid that they were thus enabled to give the Court call for the highest commendation, and I willingly give it, and in particular I would wish to acknowledge the admirable defence of Mr. J. N. Roy, who never, in length of cross-examination, or length of speech, exceeded what was right and useful. 57. But to return to this letter of the 21st of July, it must lake its place, if anything, as a confession of guilt, but that effect cannot be attributed to its terms. In my opinion it falls absolutely and wholly short of that, and to treat it as a confession by Noni that he did enter into the conspiracy to wage war against the King is beyond my ability. 58. The case as to Noni does not rest there. While the prosecution will have it that he was the leader of the conspiracy, yet a search of his house has disclosed absolutely nothing incriminating. This is a circumstance of no small significance, but the prosecution suggest an escape from it is to be found in Soilen's confession where he naively remarks, "Noni Babu never keeps any incriminating things in his house", a piece of information that he conveniently supplies after Noni's house had been searched, with the fruitless result that I have indicated. It is difficult to preserve patience when one realizes all that this statement implies, made as it was over four months after Soilen had been in custody. It is on a par with his statement that he was re-initiated by Noni. Not only was nothing incriminating found on the search of Noni's premises, but no other search, not a single document, not even the Chatra Bhandar account, has brought to light or disclosed anything that incriminates Noni. In my opinion the case against Noni Gopal has failed. 59. Not only was nothing incriminating found on the search of Noni's premises, but no other search, not a single document, not even the Chatra Bhandar account, has brought to light or disclosed anything that incriminates Noni. In my opinion the case against Noni Gopal has failed. 59. BHUTAN MUKERJI, also known as Kristodhan, lived at Sibpur with his brother, the accused Bhuban, whose trial has been adjourned on the ground of his insanity. Both Lalit and Jotin speak to his membership of the conspiracy imputing to him active participation in its work, and implicating him in specific incidents, but their evidence is without any corroboration. Lolit's evidence is noteworthy for his substitution before us of Bhutan's name in place of that of Bhuban, who is no longer on his trial. But the evidence affecting Bhutan, which calls for serious consideration, is that which would make him an active worker in the attempt to seduce soldiers of the 10th Jats. 60. This falls under two heads; first there is the testimony of those police-officers who watched the lines of the 1oth Jats and profess to have seen Bengali Babus speaking to the soldiers. They are Head Constables, Benoy Krishna Banerjee and Abbas Sobhan, but they neither of them are able state with any degree of certainty that it was actually Bhutan that they saw. And, apart from that, their evidence, so far as it is aimed against Bhutan, is by no means convincing. Thus while Binoy Kristo before the Magistrate declared that he tried to get the Bengalis names but could not succeed, he at first swore to the exact opposite here, and persisted in it until he was confronted with his former statement, which he was ulimately constrained to admit was correct. And so Abbas Sobhan has asserted before us that he saw two Bengali youths come and speak to the Sepoys, and professed to recognize Bhutan as one of them, but before the Magistrate, while he said he saw Bengalis talking to the Sepoys, still, when shown Bhutan and Bhuban, he admitted he could not recollect if he actually saw these men talking to the Sepoys. And then there is this further fact as to both these witnesses. Each has declared that he reported what he observed to his Superintendent. And then there is this further fact as to both these witnesses. Each has declared that he reported what he observed to his Superintendent. Not only however has the prosecution failed to produce these reports, but though the Superintendent appeared as a witness before us not a question was put to him by Counsel for the prosecution on this matter, a failure and a reticence that has justly attracted comment. I do not suggest that Bengalis may not have been seen talking to the Jat soldiers, but the evidence fails to show that Bhutan was one of those Bengalis. 61. The other branch of the Jat case is that which would make Bhutan an active participant in the initiation of Surjan Singh at Sibpur. I have already shown the falsity of the story of their going to Sibpur and I need not again travel over the same ground. Some reliance was placed on the fact of Bhuban's house having been pointed out in the course of verification proceedings, and this has been much discussed before us. I have given the matter my most careful consideration, and I am not convinced that the alleged identification is of the smallest value. Moreover, the rival versions of Surjan and Ram Gopal are divergent on points where they could hardly have failed to be in agreement had these witnesses been narrating their actual experiences. 62. Apart then from the contention that Surjan and Ram Gopal on their own showing would be accomplices, my estimate of their evidence is that it is not trustworthy, their stories are discrepant and their narrative is on a vital point disproved. The only remaining evidence against Bhutan is that of association, but it comes to nothing. On the other hand the search of his premises has revealed nothing incriminating, nor is there any document to which the prosecution can point as even suggestive of his membership of the conspiracy with which he is charged. Therefore the case against Bhutan has failed. 63. The oral evidence against BISHTUPADA CHATTERJI proceeds wholly from tainted sources, for though Sital Chunder Ganguli names him, he was unable to identify him and imputes nothing incriminating to him. The search of his house disclosed nothing that would justify the conclusion that his guilt was established, and therefore the case against him fails. 64. 63. The oral evidence against BISHTUPADA CHATTERJI proceeds wholly from tainted sources, for though Sital Chunder Ganguli names him, he was unable to identify him and imputes nothing incriminating to him. The search of his house disclosed nothing that would justify the conclusion that his guilt was established, and therefore the case against him fails. 64. JOGESH MITTER alias MADARU, according to Lolit was an active conspirator, and he ascribes to him a number of acts, including in particular participation in the Netra dacoity. But in no respect is there any corroboration of this evidence or of that given by Jotin, who also would implicate him in the conspiracy or of Soilen's 3rd confession in which he is named. Beyond this the oral evidence is limited to his taking part in wrestling and lathi play, and to his associating with others of the accused who happened to be his neighbours. Jogesh resided with his uncle whose house was accordingly searched, and this search of his residence resulted in the discovery of some rakhi songs and a book called "The mysteries of Nihilism" apparently belonging to one S. N. Bose. How any of these documents can be brought home to Jogesh it is difficult to see, as they were not found in his room. In my opinion, the case against Jogesh fails. 65. NOREN CHATTERJI, alias BHOLANATH, is the last of the Sibpur group. Lolit mentions him in connection with many incidents but without corroboration, and indeed, as to the most important of these incidents, the payment to Surjan Singh of money obtained by Lolit from Noren, his evidence is contradicted. Jotin mentions him in connection with the Protapchuck attempt, but his testimony is without any support. It is the evidence against this accused from other sources that calls for more serious consideration, and, in particular, that which relates to the soldiers of the 1oth Jats. 66. Briefly what is charged is that Noren got into touch with these soldiers, that he arranged for and assisted in the initiation of Surjan Singh into the conspiracy at Sibpur, and that he paid Surjan Singh money in return for his assent to join the conspiracy. 66. Briefly what is charged is that Noren got into touch with these soldiers, that he arranged for and assisted in the initiation of Surjan Singh into the conspiracy at Sibpur, and that he paid Surjan Singh money in return for his assent to join the conspiracy. I have already dealt with the story of Surjan's initiation and have shewn its falsity, and I need not further discuss it, as I have already expressed the opinion that, not only is it impossible for the initiation to have occurred in the manner described in the evidence, but that, in other respects, the testimony in its support is so untrustworthy as to be (in my opinion) incapable of acceptance. 67. The payment of money by Noren to Surjan rests in part on the evidence of Lolit and in part on that of Surjan. Lolit says he handed to Surjan on two occasions money, received for that purpose, from Noren Chatterji, but his evidence on this point is not merely uncorroborated; it is actually opposed to that of Surjan. Surjan makes a statement that he received Rs. 50 direct from Noren Chatterji, but not only is this without corroboration, but it rests on, and is indissolubly connected with, the story of the initiation which in my opinion must be rejected for reasons I have already indicated. 68. Evidence has been adduced to show that Noren Chatterji lived with Dr. Sarat, but this merely shows association between the two, and that is not disputed; on the contrary the case for the defence is that the two were connections, for Noren married, according to the Arya Samaj rites, a relative of Sarat's and it was this that led to Noren's living with Sarat. Then the prosecution say that Noren went to the Punjab and lived at Lahore. This is admitted, but it is denied that Lolit could have had, as he pretends, any personal knowledge of this. Lolit's evidence is that Noren took this journey while he, Lolit, was still at Dr. Sarat's, but it is abundantly proved that Noren went to the Punjab in July 1909. At that time Lolit is proved to have been at Nattore. There is no evidence to show that Noren, while at Lahore, did anything that could be attributed to his alleged membership of the conspiracy. Sarat's, but it is abundantly proved that Noren went to the Punjab in July 1909. At that time Lolit is proved to have been at Nattore. There is no evidence to show that Noren, while at Lahore, did anything that could be attributed to his alleged membership of the conspiracy. There is evidence of Noren's association with the Sibpur party, but that was at a time when he lived there, and there is no independent evidence of his having been seen in Sibpur after he went to live in Kidderpur, that is to say after 1907. Then it is sought to use against Noren the fact that a proclamation was issued against him, for this, it is urged, shows that he was a fugitive from justice. What endeavours were made to arrest him does not appear beyond the fact that Monmotho Nath Ghose, a Sub-Inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department, who says he knew Noren by name, and not by sight, searched for him in his house in Sibpur and in Calcutta in different parts of the town. The search in Sibpur in 191o was not likely to be profitable, seeing that there is no evidence that he was ever there subsequently to 1907. The details of the other searches have not been placed before us; but this we know that when he was seen by R. M. Ghosal, the officer who arrested him, he made no attempt at concealment or escape, and apparently he had a place of residence in Calcutta, No. 19, Ananda Khan's Lane, which is never shewn to have been searched. Have we then before us the materials that would entitle us to attribute to Noren a flight from justice that could fairly be regarded as indirect confessional evidence, pointing to his guilt of the conspiracy charged ? I think not. To begin with, no circumstances are proved that would entitle us to hold that he wittingly endeavoured to evade arrest. And even if this were otherwise, I cannot forget the comment of a distinguished Judge on indications of this type, that if the evidence without them is sufficient, this species of evidence is unnecessary, and that if not, then the inferences from them seem not of sufficient weight to give any conclusive effect to the other proofs. 69. The case against Noren Chatterji has failed. 70. 69. The case against Noren Chatterji has failed. 70. I have now dealt with all the members of the Sibpur group, and I have come to the conclusion, for the reasons I have stated, that the case made against them has not been proved. And this being so it is unnecessary for me to discuss whether on other grounds too the charge of conspiracy, so far as it relates to them, has not failed. 71. I now pass to the Kurchi group which is said to consist of SHIBU HAZRA, ATUL PAL, DASRATHI CHATTERJI and MONMOTHO RAI CHOWDHURI. The overt acts particularly attributed to them are the Morehal dacoity and the attempt at Protapchuck. 72. I will first take up the case of ATUL PAL. The evidence against him is of the most meagre description. He is named by Jotin Hazra as a member of the conspiracy, and as having been present at the Morehal dacoity, but of this there is no corroboration. On the contrary there is an indication that he was not present, for Monmotho Rai Chowdhuri, who was caught red-handed and confessed at once, never mentioned or referred to him in his confession. The evidence of association shows nothing more than companionship between him and his co-villagers. Therefore the case against Atul Pal fails. MONMOTHO NATH RAI CHOWDHURI-has been tried and convicted of participation in the Morehal dacoity. Of the justice of that conviction there can be no question : he was most happily caught on the spot and his confession is a complete admission of his guilt. For this he has already been sentenced to the substantial punishment of six years rigorous imprisonment which he fully merited. But does this conviction establish his membership of the conspiracy charged in this case ? This depends on whether the Morehal dacoity can be linked up with the conspiracy. The only direct evidence on this point is that of Jotin Hazra, and apart from the general untrust-worthiness of this approver, it is doubtful whether he was present at this dacoity. It is true that after his arrest he confessed to this crime, but he afterwards withdrew this confession on the ground that it was wrongly extorted and in the end he was acquitted. It is true that after his arrest he confessed to this crime, but he afterwards withdrew this confession on the ground that it was wrongly extorted and in the end he was acquitted. In addition to this, Monmotho Nath Rai Chowdhuri does not mention him in his confession, though the evidence is that Jotin knew him two months before the dacoity. In the circumstances it is impossible to accept Jotin's evidence on this matter with any degree of confidence. Monmotho's confession certainly does not point to a conspiracy to wage war, or to any purpose beyond a desire on the part of the dacoits to enrich themselves. And beyond this we have nothing but remarks attributed to Shibu by Fakir Pal, a witness who did not impress me favourably. 73. The connection of the Morehal dacoity with the alleged conspiracy is not established, and therefore Monmotho is not proved to be a member of the present conspiracy. DASARATHI CHATTERJI is stated by the approver Jotin Hazra to have been a member of the secret society, and the prosecution have adduced evidence of his association with his co-villagers, members of the Kurchi group. The overt act in which he is alleged to have taken part is the Morehal dacoity. What precisely happened to Dasarathi in connection with the Morehal dacoity is not clear. Mr. Duval, the Committing Magistrate, says he was put on his trial and acquitted. If so, then there is an end of the case so far as he is concerned. No order of acquittal however has been placed before us, and if he was not acquitted, then he was either discharged or not put on his trial, for he certainly was not convicted. The position then is that we are now asked after this long lapse of time, and notwithstanding the discharge (if there was a discharge) to hold him guilty of the offence on the strength of Jotin Hazra's evidence and retracted confession. In my opinion it must be held that Dasarathi Chatterji's guilt of the conspiracy to wage war against the King is not proved. 74. SHIBU HAZRA is the last of the Kurchi group with whom I have to deal. According to the case for the prosecution he is the local leader of this group, and as such a prominent member of the conspiracy. His position and attainments however hardly fit him for this position. 74. SHIBU HAZRA is the last of the Kurchi group with whom I have to deal. According to the case for the prosecution he is the local leader of this group, and as such a prominent member of the conspiracy. His position and attainments however hardly fit him for this position. Before us Lolit pointed out Shibu as a man he had seen once or twice at Noni Gopal's house, though he says he does not know in what connection he went there. Before Mr. Duval, however, when Shibu and another accused were shown him, he said '' I do not identify these two men shown me." It is true that after his deposition was completed, Lolit professed that he saw Shibu at Noni's house, but this addition to his deposition is most suspicious, and, in the absence of any explanation by the prosecution, I am unable to place any reliance on it. 75. The other evidence against Shibu is his alleged participation in the Morehal dacoity. I have however pointed out that this dacoity is not shewn to have been the work of the conspiracy with which we are concerned. Further than that, Shibu was arrested at the time for complicity in that dacoity, but was discharged, and the propriety of that discharge was not called in question. There undoubtedly stands against Shibu a conviction under the Arms Act, and though the correctness of that decision was questioned, I think it must be accepted as conclusive. The punishment imposed was merely a fine of Rs. 25 and in default one month's rigorous imprisonment. This might at first blush appear an inadequate punishment, but a view of the weapon Vide, description of pistol by Magistrate, p. 598, col. i, ante.-ED. showed it was well fitted to the requirements of the case. It certainly was not a weapon with which one would willingly wage war against any one, much less against the Ring's forces, and the mere possession of it is very far from furnishing the proof of which we are in quest. It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence of Nitai Chunder Dwari for it merely goes to prove the possession by Shibu of arms, and that I hold to be otherwise established. The result then is that the case against Shibu fails. 76. It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence of Nitai Chunder Dwari for it merely goes to prove the possession by Shibu of arms, and that I hold to be otherwise established. The result then is that the case against Shibu fails. 76. The accused belonging to the Kidderpore group are SARAT MITTER and SURESH MITTER-CHARU CHARAN GHOSE was also treated as belonging to this group throughout the trial. 77. SARAT MITTER or Dr. Sarat, as he has been called, is a man of 46, with a family, who prior to his arrest, had carried on a dispensary and also a mudi's shop. Apart from the general evidence given by Lolit, the case against Sarat is that he supplied the poisoned pills of which we hear in connection with the dacoits, and that he was concerned with the attempt on the loyalty of the 10th Jats. The suggestion as to the poisoned pills is without anything to support it and must be rejected. His connection with the alleged attempt on the 10th Jats has not been established. That he was in any way involved in Surjan's initiation rests on the theory that he then lived at 86-1, Diamond Harbour Road, but this is clearly opposed to the fact, as I have already explained in some detail when discussing the story as to the 10th Jats. Moreover, apart from this, I think the attempt to prove Sarat guilty of attempting to seduce the Sepoys of the 10th Jats has failed. 78. What else is there against him after these allegations have failed ? It never has been disputed that Lolit lived with him from the beginning of 1909 till April 1909, and it is said, and I think it is proved, that, while Lolit so lived with Sarat, he was in his employ at a small remuneration. For the defence, it is pointed out that there is nothing that tells against Sarat in this, for it would be quite natural, and in accordance with ordinary custom, that Lolit as a man with Mazilpur associations should go for employment to Sarat who had intimate connection with that village. Noren Chatterjee's connection too with Sarat admits of reasonable and innocent explanation, for he was married to his relative, and was employed in the immediate neighbourhood. Moreover, Noren was not a guest of Sarat's; he paid for his ordinary expenses. Noren Chatterjee's connection too with Sarat admits of reasonable and innocent explanation, for he was married to his relative, and was employed in the immediate neighbourhood. Moreover, Noren was not a guest of Sarat's; he paid for his ordinary expenses. The search of Sarat's premises revealed nothing incriminating. The case against Sarat Mitter fails. 79. The case against SURESH MITTER also fails. Lolit's evidence implicating him is unsupported, for I cannot regard Baru Kurmi's testimony as showing that Suresh ever went with Lolit to Borya in connection with the robbery of an idol. Baru Kurmi's story is not convincing, but, even if it be accepted as true, it would go to show nothing against Suresh seeing that he lived and carried on business at Rajpore, a village on the way to Netra, and used from time to time to stay with his brother Sarat, and so naturally became acquainted with Lolit. Nothing incriminating is said to have been found in his house. The case against him fails. 80. CHARU CHUNDRA GHOSE'S physical infirmity was such that we were constrained to dispense with his attendance during the trial, and we have to-day been told that he has succumbed to the serious illness from which he was suffering. In the circumstances, it has become unnecessary to discuss the evidence adduced against him, but I would wish to say that a very careful consideration of that evidence has led me to the clear conclusion that he was innocent of the charge brought against him. 81. The Changripota party consists of BHUSON MITTER alias Guley and NOREN BHATTACHARJEE. 82. Lolit mentions BHUSON in connection with 4 events, but as to none of them has he been corroborated, in fact while Lolit would place him among the Netra docoits Soilen Das does not name him. Bhuson seems to have been suspected in connection with the Changripota dacoity, but he has never been placed on his trial for this offence, though it was committed more than 3 years ago. I have already indicated the difficulty in the way of our retrying that case after this long lapse of time, and in the absence of evidence which influenced the Court in discharging the accused then before it. I have already indicated the difficulty in the way of our retrying that case after this long lapse of time, and in the absence of evidence which influenced the Court in discharging the accused then before it. The other evidence against him is that of Haran Chundra Chal who deposes that a party of young men, of whom the accused Bhuson and Noren Bhattacharjee were two, stamped the bilati cloth in Haran's shop. The charge against him is not made out. 83. NOREN BHATTACHARJEE is the other member of the Changripota group. He too was suspected of being concerned in the Changripota dacoity but was discharged. He was party also to the cloth-stamping incident, and, however reprehensible it may have been, it cannot be seriously regarded as proof of the conspiracy charged in this case, and, indeed, it has not been so treated before us. Lolit, it is true, now speaks of Noren Bhattacharjee as a member of the conspiracy, but he so implicates him in general terms. Before us he has named him as one of those implicated in the Netra dacoity, and he says that it was at the Netra dacoity he first saw Noren Bhattacharjee, and came to know he was a member of the Society. Lolit, however, made no mention of Noren, in his confession, as a party to the Netra dacoity. He first introduces his name in this connection before the verifying Magistrate on the 13th of December. He, however, failed to identify him when he was taken to the Alipur Central Jail for that purpose, by Mr. Sati Prosad Ganguly, and he similarly failed before Mr. Duval on the 9th of April 1910. His evidence before the Committing Magistrate on the nth of April, when Noren was shown to him was,-" Now too I am uncertain if this man was at the dacoity. A Norendra Nath Bhattacharjee of Changripota, was I heard, there." And so we find that Lolit's statement that Noren was at Netra comes to nothing, and as it is on Noren's alleged presence there that he professes to base his knowledge of his being a member of the conspiracy, this imputation too falls to the ground. I need only add that there is absolutely no corroboration of Lolit's evidence against Noren. I need only add that there is absolutely no corroboration of Lolit's evidence against Noren. Noren Bhatta charjee's visit to Benares is not treated by the prosecution as evidence against him: apparently it merely had to do with a possible treaty for marriage. On the search of Noren's house nothing incriminating was found, but on the occasion of his arrest in connection with the Changripota dacoity, a copy of the Bartaman Rananiti was found on him, as also a manuscript headed " The Mother's Call." The Bartaman Rananiti was a very recent publication at that time, and was, apparently, in great demand, so that mere possession of this book would obviously in no way establish membership of the conspiracy with which we are concerned. Nor would this membership be established by possession of the unpublished manuscript which is not shown or even suggested to be in Noren's handwriting. The result then is that in my opinion the case against Noren Bhattacharjee fails. 84. The Mazilpur group comes next, and it comprises four accused. ROJONI BHATTACHARJEE, INDU KIRON BHATTACHARJEE, TINCOWRI DAS and CHUNI LAL NANDI. 85. Against INDU KIRON there is no evidence worthy of consideration. Lolit declares that he was a conspirator, that he started on one of the abandoned excursions to Netra, and that he had to do with the Netra loot at Mazilpur. But there is not a syllable to be found in corroboration of any of these statements. It is said that he was member of the Mazilpur Young Mens Association, but it cannot be pretended that this was a limb of the conspiracy, while the fact that he bought such innocent materials as bed-sheeting, a towel and another article of a cognate character from the Chatra Bhandar on the 24th of January 1910, at a total cost of Rs. 2-7, can hardly be treated as evidence of guilt, though Counsel for the prosecution seriously brought these purchases to our notice as part of his case against Indu Kiron. 86. The case against TINCOWRI DAS is also weak. Lolit would associate Tincowri with the preparations for the Netra dacoity and with the dacoity itself. 2-7, can hardly be treated as evidence of guilt, though Counsel for the prosecution seriously brought these purchases to our notice as part of his case against Indu Kiron. 86. The case against TINCOWRI DAS is also weak. Lolit would associate Tincowri with the preparations for the Netra dacoity and with the dacoity itself. He declares that while many of the party started by train from Baliaghata, the five men from Joynagar and Mazilpur (of whom Tincowri was one) came walking all the way, and that, after the dacoity was over and a list of the loot made, the stolen property and arms, except a few revolvers, were made over to the Joynagar men, and the Joynagar and Mazilpur men walked in the direction of Joynagar. He then goes on to describe how the rest of them made for the Railway, and states that they returned by train, some from Mograhat station and some from Sangrampore. He reached Sarat's house, he says, at 11 A.M., and this would be on the 24th of April. But Kusum Kumar Roy, prosecution witness No. 33, deposes that he went to Sarat's house at 10 or 11 A.M., on that morning, and then found Tincowri there upstairs, and suffering from high fever. This not only agrees with what Amulya Kumar Rai, prosecution witness No. 34, was told on the 23rd, i.e., that Tincowri had left the refreshment stall at the Zoological Gardens, where he was employed by Kusum, with fever, but it also shows that Tincowri could not have taken the part in the Netra dacoity ascribed to him by Lolit, or even have been there. 87. Counsel for the prosecution has seriously asked us to treat an act of kindliness performed by Tincowri as tending to prove his guilt, for he has argued that the assistance rendered by Tincowri in connection with the cremation of a deceased Brahmo's body is indicative of his being a member of this conspiracy. It would have been a misfortune if this argument had possessed the force claimed for it, for I can imagine nothing more deplorable than that young men should be driven into churlishness through the fear that their kindly deeds may rise up in judgment against them. It would have been a misfortune if this argument had possessed the force claimed for it, for I can imagine nothing more deplorable than that young men should be driven into churlishness through the fear that their kindly deeds may rise up in judgment against them. The evidence of association led against Tincowri goes for nothing; as long as there is village life young men must have their neighbours as their companions in their sports and games. The documentary evidence connected with Tincowri furnishes no proof of his guilt, and in my opinion the case against him has completely failed. 88. RAJONI BHATTACHARJEE according to Lolit took part in the Netra dacoity and helped to bring back the loot from Mazilpur. It is argued for the prosecution that there is confirmation of his presence at the dacoity in the discovery of the pieces of paper These pieces of paper are alleged to have been found in a field near the place of occurrence, and being put together, left blanks and only showed, Ex. 15, coupled with the evidence of Fani Bhattacharjee and Fani Mukherjee, and of the story of the loot in the testimony of Jotindra Dutt and of Hem Chandra Mondal. The discovery of Ex. 15 reflects credit on Mr. Warden's care and resource, and tends to induce a suspicion that Rojoni may have been present at the dacoity. By itself, however, it could not possibly form the basis of a judicial decision against Rojoni, so we have to see whether such a substratum of evidence has been laid as creates a substantial and independent prima facie case that Rojoni was present. We have nothing but Lolit's testimony and, apart from his general untrustworthiness, it has been very strongly contended before us that Lolit's version of the dacoity is such that he cannot have been present, or cannot have told the truth. It is difficult to reconcile some of his statements with his actual presence at the dacoity. Thus he declared in his confession, '' All of us had had rubber masks on, and they covered our heads, faces, half of our arms and the body down to the waist. None with such a mask on can be identified. It also changes the tone of the voice. They were taken off in the field where the list was made and Bhutan took them away with him. None with such a mask on can be identified. It also changes the tone of the voice. They were taken off in the field where the list was made and Bhutan took them away with him. I have heard that they were burnt off." This is a definite and detailed statement of a remarkable fact, and if Lolit really was at the dacoity, he can hardly have been mistaken as to these masks. And yet there is not a word about them that it was a letter addressed to a person Raj.........K.....B., and this, it was alleged, showed that it must have been addressed to Rojoni, other evidence being adduced to show that the Mazilpur Students' and Young Mens Association had addressed a letter to Rojoni who was a member to attend one of their meetings But the list of members of the Association showed that there were also other members to whom Raj............K.........B., would apply.-ED. in the first information or in the evidence of the witnesses called in this case. In point of fact the first information is opposed to this story, for we get a description there of one dacoit as having a pagri of white cloth tied on his head, as being of black complexion, and aged 18 or 19, of another as having his head, beard and moustaches shaved, and being of black complexion, of another having his chin tied round, and of the remaining three or four as having pagris on their heads and their chins tied round. Moreover Ram Taran in his first information said he would be able to recognize one of the dacoits. The evidence, too, negatives the wearing of these masks. I feel no doubt that the story told in the first information and the evidence is the true one, and if that be so, how is it possible that Lolit can have been present, or at any rate can have told a true story as to the dacoity and those present at it ? Then again he has throughout declared there were 21 dacoits, but while in his confession he mentions a man from an Ashu Babu's akra, in his statement to the verifying Magistrate Norendra Nath Bhattacharjee takes this man's place. Then again he has throughout declared there were 21 dacoits, but while in his confession he mentions a man from an Ashu Babu's akra, in his statement to the verifying Magistrate Norendra Nath Bhattacharjee takes this man's place. Then again he indentifies two outsiders, Nirad Krishna Chakrabarty and Noni Gopal Bhattacharjee, as having taken part in the Netra dacoity, but it is admitted they had nothing whatever to do with it. It would be easy to cite other instances which go to show how unreliable Lolit is in his statements as to the Netra dacoity, but it is unnecessary; those I have given suffice to show that the doubt cast by the defence on his presence is not without foundation, and it certainly would be most unsafe to rely on his evidence as giving to the discovery of Ex. 15 See p. 631, ante.-ED. the requisite support. 89. Then there is the story of the carriage of the loot from Mazilpur. This is not the only occasion on which Lolit professes to have been sent for loot, and notably he claims to have been sent for the Barrah loot, a story to which I have already referred as unworthy of acceptance. And so it is not unreasonable to look for confirmation of his mission in connection with the Netra loot. The pleader, a member of the family of Mazilpur Dutts, with whom he claims to have walked from Magrahat Station to Mazilpur, has not been called as a witness, but Jotindra Dutt and Hem Chandra Mondal have been called to corroborate Lolit's story of his journey with the loot from Mazilpur to Baruipore, for this is the route Lolit, says he, Rajoni and Chuni took when carrying the loot back to Calcutta. Why they should have gone to Baruipore Station which is 16 miles from Mazilpur, instead of Magrahat Station, which is considerably nearer, and the station from which Lolit went to Mazilpur, does not appear. But be that as it may, can it be said that Jotin corroborates Lolit ? I think not. He does not fix with precision the date to which he deposes, and this I feel is a matter that might have been placed beyond dispute. But more than this, his evidence throws the gravest doubt on the story that the party had the loot with them. I think not. He does not fix with precision the date to which he deposes, and this I feel is a matter that might have been placed beyond dispute. But more than this, his evidence throws the gravest doubt on the story that the party had the loot with them. He could not have failed to observe the receptacles in which according to Lalit the loot was, for he describes them as " a very big earthen vessel and a very big trunk." Moreover, Jotin never saw Lolit. Jotin's failure to see either the " very big earthen vessel and the very big trunk " or Lolit, cannot be attributed to darkness, for it was day-light when he says he saw Rajoni and Chuni. 90. Hem Chandra Mondal's evidence is not very helpful. He is a ticca ghari driver who professes to remember having driven three men with a tin box and a handi to Baruipore from Barasat, and to be able to recognise Lolit as one of the party. But his story is hopelessly at variance with that told by Lolit and Jotindra; for he declares that it was in the night that he was roused by his master to drive these three fares to Baruipore, and that he reached the station before sunrise. He was not in the service of the man who owned the ghari when he gave evidence before us. It does not appear when he left that service, or how it became known that he could give this evidence. He was not a witness whose evidence would command confidence, particularly when he professed before us an ability to speak with particularity as to remote dates, which he apparently was not in a position to do before the Magistrate. Why his master, who is alive and who is said to have made the arrangement for the hire of the ghari, was not called, does not appear. The result is that the story cannot be taken to be proved. In addition to this there is a difficulty in the way of holding that Rajoni conspired with any of those included in the charge. The result is that the story cannot be taken to be proved. In addition to this there is a difficulty in the way of holding that Rajoni conspired with any of those included in the charge. Some literature was found on the search of the grandfather's house where Rajoni was living, but there were several other residents of this house, and the prosecution have failed to establish facts that would justify our holding that this literature was in Rajoni's possession, and so it is unnecessary to deal with it. This then is the case against Rajoni, and, in my opinion, it fails to establish his guilt of the charge of conspiracy. 91. The only remaining accused of this group is CHUNI LAL NANDI. Apart from minor incidents, which stand uncorroboarated, Lolit would merely connect him with the Netra dacoity and residence at Benares. He is said to have been present at the Netra dacoity, but of this there is no corroboration. He is also said to have been a party to the carriage of the Netra loot from Mazilpur, and this story I have discussed at length in dealing with Rajoni's case. 92. Chuni Lal's alleged residence at Benares has given rise to much discussion. The case made by the prosecution is that Chuni and Pabitra went from Calcutta to Benares in June 1908, that they started the day before the Rat-jatra, i.e., on the 30th of June, or the 16th of Assar, and that they broke their journey at Gaya, and resumed their journey the following day. Though the defence maintain that, even if the journey was taken, there was nothing incriminating in it, still they deny that either Chuni or Pabitra went to Benares at that time, and they contend that the story of the prosecution is demonstrably false. Both Chuni and Pabitra were in the service of the Chatra Bhandar, and it is on the entries in the books of that Association that the case for the defence is founded. The entries on which reliance has been placed have been very fully discussed before us, and the conclusion to which I come is that they disprove the story of the prosecution, and they also go to show that Chuni and Pabitra did not stay at Benares as is alleged. Moreover, the story told by the prosecution is intrinsically improbable. The entries on which reliance has been placed have been very fully discussed before us, and the conclusion to which I come is that they disprove the story of the prosecution, and they also go to show that Chuni and Pabitra did not stay at Benares as is alleged. Moreover, the story told by the prosecution is intrinsically improbable. The version of the journey and its coincidences as told by prosecution witness No. 80 does not commend itself to me, and the reason Lolit gives for their journey, or, as he would suggest, their flight to Benares, is not shown to have any foundation in fact. He has suggested that they left Calcutta because they had been named by Gossain, the informer in the Alipur Bomb Case, and he says, he heard this from Pabitra. Not only, however, is it not shown that they were so named, but it so happens that Pabitra was actually examined as a witness for the Crown in that case. 93. Chuni's house was searched at Mazilpur, and several documents were found there on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution. The utmost they do is to show connection with the accused Pabitra, with the Chatra Bhandar and with some person whose address was at Dr. Sarat Mitter's at 86-1, Diamond Harbour Road, and that he had in his possession such books as Desher Katha and Sivaji by Sakharam Gonesh Deoskar, and this certainly cannot be taken as conclusive of his guilt. The case against Chuni Lal fails. 94. The Haludbari group, as arranged by Counsel for the prosecution, included nine of the accused, but as two of them, Bidhu Bhusan Biswas and Monmatha Biswas, were acquitted of the Haludbari dacoity, they are obviously not properly placed in this group which should be confined to the seven accused convicted of that offence. They are SOILEN DAS, SUSIL BISWAS, ATUL MUKHERJEE, KIRON RAI, GONES DAS, SOILENDRA CHATTERJEE, and UPENDRA KRISTO DEB. Of these the two first were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, and the remaining five to eight years' rigorous imprisonment, in the Haludbari case. 95. The case against KIRON ROY as I have already stated has been dropped, and so it only remains to be considered whether the remaining six accused of this group are guilty of the conspiracy into which we are enquiring. 95. The case against KIRON ROY as I have already stated has been dropped, and so it only remains to be considered whether the remaining six accused of this group are guilty of the conspiracy into which we are enquiring. Their guilt of the Haludbari dacoity is established and is not questioned, and that offence is alleged to be an overt act of the conspiracy. In my opinion this is made out. Having regard to the position of these six accused, the articles found on them and all the circumstances of the case, I can come to no other conclusion than that this dacoity was the work of a conspiracy, that the conspiracy was of the character charged, and that these accused were parties to it. 96. The only member of the Krishnagar group now before the Court is SURESH MOZUMDAR alias PORAN, the case against the two other members of this group having been dropped in the course of the trial for want of evidence. The case against Suresh is extremely weak. The endeavour to establish his connection with the revolver used in the murder of Shamsul Alum has failed, and this was conceded by Counsel for the Crown. His connection with the Chatra Bhandar was merely that of a customer and can prove nothing for the purposes of this case. Then Lolit says that Suresh took him to the house of Kishori Babu, but there is no confirmation of this association though it was open to the prosecution to have called Kishori Babu, a well-known Vakil of this Court, and one of the senior members of the Pleaders' Bar. Suresh's house was searched, as well as the premises of the Arya Chemical Works with which he was associated, but nothing incriminating was found. The result then is that the case against Suresh Mozumdar fails. 97. The Nattore group consists of SIRISH SARKAR and BEJOY CHAKRABUTTY. SIRISH is the son of Doctor Girish Sarkar of Nattore, and the principal oral evidence against him is that of Lolit who speaks to association with him at Beliashishi, at Nattore and at Darjeeling. Lolit deposes that he met him at Beliashishi during his flight from justice after the Netra dacoity. SIRISH is the son of Doctor Girish Sarkar of Nattore, and the principal oral evidence against him is that of Lolit who speaks to association with him at Beliashishi, at Nattore and at Darjeeling. Lolit deposes that he met him at Beliashishi during his flight from justice after the Netra dacoity. Now this must have been (if at all) in May 1909, and if the account Lolit gives of his movements is even approximately true, then it must have been about the 13th or 14th of May. But it is impossible to reconcile this with what we know from other sources of Sirish's movements, and this meeting at Beliashishi cannot be accepted as true. That they met at Nattore is not questioned: Doctor Girish, it seems, was a hospitable man who kept open house and Lolit came there. It was while he was there that he was introduced by Sirish to Bhubaneswar Singh, who was on the look-out for a tutor, and this enables us to get at a date fixed beyond dispute, for Bhubaneswar Singh is by reference to his books of account, able to fix the date when Lolit entered his service as the 17th Joista or the 31st of May 1909, and the date of his leaving as the 26th of Assar or the 10th of July following. This brings me to the alleged theft of a gold ornament at Patna, with which the prosecution would associate Sirish. Lolit's story is that a few days after he entered Bhubaneswar's service, Sirish went to Patna, and on his return made over to him a lump of half melted gold, which he said he brought back from Patna. The prosecution theory is that this gold represents a gold ornament stolen from Hemangini, the wife of Kedar Nath Banerjee, a Patna pleader. But Lolit's story is manifestly untrustworthy, for while he would place Sirish's journey a few days after he, Lolit, entered Bhubaneswar's service, i.e., in June, the theft of the gold ornament was some time before the 18th of May. But, while Lolit's story is false, there is no doubt, and indeed it is not disputed, that Sirish was at Patna at the time of the alleged theft. But, while Lolit's story is false, there is no doubt, and indeed it is not disputed, that Sirish was at Patna at the time of the alleged theft. It is however denied that Sirish had anything to do with the theft, and it was admitted on behalf of the Crown that, on the evidence, it would be impossible to convict Sirish of the theft. 98. No doubt gold was sold by Lolit to Jamini, a poddar at Dighapatia, on the 18th of June, and in the record of the transaction in the poddar's books, the name of Sirish appears. But it so appears only on the debit side of the account, and the mode in which it is written suggests that Sirish's name was subequently added, and this agrees with the absence of Sirish's name from the credit entry of the transaction. Moreover, the amount of gold sold does not correspond with weight of that stolen. Jamini declares that of the notes handed over by him on this occasion one for Rs. 100 bore the No. 87042, and this note, which has been produced before us, was endorsed by Jamini on the 4th of Assar, the date of the sale of gold, and subsequently endorsed by Dr. Girish. Still, I think it was rightly stated by Counsel for the Crown that the evidence does not prove Sirish to have been the thief, though the matter is not free from suspicion. That Sirish and Lolit went to Darjeeling is conceded, and from Ex. 38 written on the 25th of August by Dr. Girish, his father, it appears that Sirish went up to the hills in the hopes of recovery from a somewhat distressing ailment, and from Ex. 153 that he resided in the Lowis Jubilee Sanitarium from the 26th of August 1909. Lolit, too, it seems, was ill, suffering from malaria, and Ex. 151 shows that he resided in the Sanitarium from the 26th of August 1909. Sirish left on the 1st of October, and Lolit was arrested on the 27th. 99. 153 that he resided in the Lowis Jubilee Sanitarium from the 26th of August 1909. Lolit, too, it seems, was ill, suffering from malaria, and Ex. 151 shows that he resided in the Sanitarium from the 26th of August 1909. Sirish left on the 1st of October, and Lolit was arrested on the 27th. 99. The mere fact that Sirish and Lolit went at the same time to the Darjeeling Sanitarium would not go for much in the circumstances I have described, but what is relied on is the fact that Lolit there gave his true name in place of the assumed name of Lal Mohan Chowdhury, under which he had passed at Nattore, for this, it is said, shows that Sirish must have known throughout that he was passing under an assumed name, and can only have tolerated it because he was in league with him. Indeed an attempt was made to show that Sirish must otherwise have known that Lolit was passing under an assumed name, by suggesting that Lolit had previously visited Nattore under his true name. But Lolit himself has exploded that theory, so that I only have to deal with the fact that Lolit gave his true name at the Sanitarium. I fail to see how that in itself can show Sirish knew, when Lolit was at Nattore. that he was passing under an assumed name. Even if it be assumed that Sirish knew what name Lolit gave at the Sanitarium,-a matter not clearly established,-that in itself would only show that he gave a different name at the Sanitarium from that under which he passed at Nattore; it could not possibly antedate Sirish's knowledge. This then is the case against Sirish : undoubtedly there are in it elements of suspicion, but I am not satisfied that it establishes against Sirish a conspiracy to wage war against the King. 100. BEJOY KUMAR CHAKARVARTY has been convicted under the Arms Act and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment from the 15th of March 1910. This conviction is conclusive so far as it goes, and it would not be profitable to discuss its propriety. But the conviction itself would not warrant the inference that the accused was a member of this conspiracy, so Lolit again, as in so many other cases, comes forward with his timely aid. This conviction is conclusive so far as it goes, and it would not be profitable to discuss its propriety. But the conviction itself would not warrant the inference that the accused was a member of this conspiracy, so Lolit again, as in so many other cases, comes forward with his timely aid. The arms found in Bejoy's possession were four revolvers, and Lolit says that he handed to Bejoy at Rajshahye five revolvers that came from Calcutta in Assar 1909. But this story is belated; it is after the discovery of the revolvers at the search of the 6th of January 1910; and in his confession of the 5th of November 1909, which preceded the search, he speaks of swords only in connection with Bejoy, without a word about revolvers. It is true that it was in consequence of a statement made by Lolit that Mr. Mawson applied for warrants, but there is no suggestion that Lolit gave any information as to pistols, or that Mr. Mawson expected to find any in the office. 101. Then, again, it is doubtful whether Lolit ever went to Rajshahye. In his confession he mentions no such visit, and even states that in consequence of the tutorship he got in the zemindar's family, he " desisted from going to Rajshahye.'' Before Mr. Duval, how ver, he stated that he went to Rajshahye with the zemindar's leave, but he did not repeat this before us, nor was Bhubaneswar asked any question on this subject. Further than that, I find that Lolit in the course of the verification proceedings said that Bejoy was at the time Head Master of the National School, and lived at the house of Sarat Babu. Before Mr. Duval he shifted his ground, and said Bejoy told him he was living at the house of Sarat Babu, the Head Master of the National School. Now the documentary evidence shows that Bejoy's services, as a school master at the Bhola Nath Academy, Rajshahye, were dispensed with in November 1908, and Gangadhar Bhattacharjee, in whose basha he lived from 1904 to November or December 1908, deposes that Bejoy then went to Dighapatia and he did not see him in Rajshahye after that. Now the documentary evidence shows that Bejoy's services, as a school master at the Bhola Nath Academy, Rajshahye, were dispensed with in November 1908, and Gangadhar Bhattacharjee, in whose basha he lived from 1904 to November or December 1908, deposes that Bejoy then went to Dighapatia and he did not see him in Rajshahye after that. Moreover, the prosecution have not adduced evidence to support either of Lolit's two rival stories, either the first story that Bejoy was the Head Master of the National School or the altered story. 102. On the whole, therefore, I am unable to accept this story that Lolit went to Rajshahye, and handed over the revolvers to Bejoy. And so the endeavour to connect Bejoy with Calcutta fails, and his membership of the conspiracy is not proved. 103. The members of the Jowgacha group are KALIPADA CHAKRAVARTY and PULIN SARKAR and they may be dismissed from consideration very briefly, for there really is no evidence against them on which any reliance can be placed. Apart from the approvers, the witnesses called against them merely speak to an association with their fellow villagers, which had nothing incriminating about it. The case fails against these two accused. 104. Then I come to KARTICK DUTTA and TARA NATH ROY CHOUDHURY whom the prosecution would place side by side, on the ground of their alleged connection with the Jugantar newspaper. 105. I have already dealt with the suggestion that the Jugantar was a limb of this conspiracy and have shown that it has not been made good. Kartick's complicity in the Bighati dacoity cannot be questioned, but is there anything which shows that dacoity to have been the work of this conspiracy ? We start with the fact that the two men convicted with Kartick of this dacoity are not alleged to be conspirators, and when this was brought to the notice of Counsel for the prosecution, it was said, in explanation of this omission, that mere participation in this dacoity would not prove membership of the conspiracy. Then, again, Lolit did not mention Kartick as a conspirator, either in his confession or in the course of the verification, while his attempt to connect this dacoity with the conspiracy by the story he tells of the dispute as to the Bighati loot, is manifestly absurd. 106. Then, again, Lolit did not mention Kartick as a conspirator, either in his confession or in the course of the verification, while his attempt to connect this dacoity with the conspiracy by the story he tells of the dispute as to the Bighati loot, is manifestly absurd. 106. Panna Lal Chatterjee, the approver in the Bighati case, and now in the employ of the Criminal Investigation Department, attempted before Mr. Duval to connect the dacoity with the conspiracy by stating that one Keshab had told him that three of the men in the Bighati case " were of the Howrah gang." Before us he has altered his story and has deposed that he thought the three men went there from Howrah as he " inferred it from their conversation," having overheard one or two things, though he admits they did not tell him about the dacoity. But if we go back to Panna Lal's statements before Mr. Patterson in the Bighati case, there is not a word of this or of the conspiracy to overthrow the British Government, though Panna Lal, in making his confession, showed every anxiety to bring the wrong-doers to book, as is apparent from his remark, ''I shall tell you everything and you will please see all the members of the gang are punished." 107. Panna Lal's story obviously cannot be accepted; it developed to suit the exigencies of the case. Panna Lal gives evidence that Kartick took him to the Jugantar office, and Puma Chandra Lahiri says he saw Kartick frequently at the Jugantar office, but he was doing nothing; he used to put up in the building where the offices were. Besides the Jugantar office it appears from Purna Chandra Lahiri's evidence that the Sumati Press was also there, and it is urged for Kartick that his presence on the premises was in connection with the press and not with the Jugantar. This is a point that has not been cleared up, but whichever be the true version, it matters not for the purposes of this case, in the view I take of the Jugantar's alleged relations with the conspiracy into which we are enquiring. 108. The documentary evidence used against Kartick consists of certain letters. Ex. 159, the Thakur letter, is in my opinion innocuous, for reasons which I will set forth, when I come to discuss the case against Annoda. 108. The documentary evidence used against Kartick consists of certain letters. Ex. 159, the Thakur letter, is in my opinion innocuous, for reasons which I will set forth, when I come to discuss the case against Annoda. Nor do I think the other documents in any way go to show he was a member of this conspiracy. The real case against Kartick is that he has been held guilty of the Bighati dacoity. I have already given my reason for thinking that dacoity was not connected with the conspiracy, and it follows that, of whatever Kartick may have been guilty, it is not proved that he was a member of this conspiracy, and so the case against him fails. 109. TARA NATH ROY CHOWDHURY has been convicted under the Arms Act and has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment from the 19th of May 1910. Lolit speaks of him as a conspirator, and before Mr. Duval he said, " I have known Tara Nath since 1906. He lived in Rajah's Lane." As a matter of fact he had no connection with 4, Rajah's Lane, until September or October 1907, and he only remained there six or seven months. More than that, I find that in the verification proceedings, Lolit pointed out 3-1, Rajah's Lane, as Tara Nath's residence, whereas in fact he lived at 4-1. Then, again, it is significant that, though Lolit mentions Tara Nath in his confession, he makes no reference to arms being taken to his house from Colonel Nandi's garden, which is the story he now tells. 110. That Tara Nath lived in Benares and was arrested there is established, but it is denied that he associated there with Lolit and there is no reliable evidence to that effect. So, again, it is clearly proved that Tara Nath was the Manager of the Jugantar, and the period of his management was from November 1907, to April 1908, but whatever may be his criminal responsibility for what was written during that period, his managership does not prove his membership of this conspiracy, for reasons which I have already set forth. We have a confession and a retraction by Tara Nath but, giving them all their due effect, they fall short of connecting Tara Nath with this conspiracy. We have a confession and a retraction by Tara Nath but, giving them all their due effect, they fall short of connecting Tara Nath with this conspiracy. We are only concerned with the question whether it has been proved that Tara Nath is guilty of the conspiracy to which this case relates, and not with any other delinquencies he may have committed, and the evidence fails to prove him to be a conspirator for the purposes of this case. 111. The Chatra Bhandar group consists of PABITRO DUTTA, ANNODA RAI, HORENDRA BANEKJEE and NORENDKA NATH BOSE. 112. For reasons I have already set forth I hold that the Chatra Bhandar is not proved to be a limb of the conspiracy, and mere association with it will not suffice to establish the guilt of these four accused. Nor does it advance the case against Pabitro that he was associated with Annoda in the management of the Chatra Bhandar. In this view, the case against Pabitro may be dismissed with a few words. It is not proved that he managed, controlled, or worked for the Jugantar and the argument based on his alleged connection with that paper fails. At the same time the prosecution has wholly failed to prove any criminal association between Pabitro and Tara Nath or anyone else at Benares; indeed as I have already shown, the documentary evidence casts grave doubt on the truth of Lolit's story. Pabitro, therefore, is not proved to be guilty. 113. The case against ANNODA RAI or ANNODA KABIRAJ must also fail. It is in the May complaint that his name first appears, and he was not mentioned by Lolit until he gave his evidence before Mr. Duval. He was arrested on the 26th of May 1910, and placed before the Magistrate on the 27th. He was not however identified by Lolit till the 15th of June, though on the 6th both he and Lolit were in the Magistrate's Court. The prosecution would make much of Ex. 159, the Thakur letter, as it has been termed, and it is necessary that I should examine this letter and the evidence relating to it with some care. It is a letter purporting to be written by Kartick to the Kabiraj, and though the handwriting is not proved, it is not disputed that Kartick was the writer. 159, the Thakur letter, as it has been termed, and it is necessary that I should examine this letter and the evidence relating to it with some care. It is a letter purporting to be written by Kartick to the Kabiraj, and though the handwriting is not proved, it is not disputed that Kartick was the writer. The prosecution would have it that the mention of a Thakur was a cryptic reference to a revolver, that the allusion to a printer was the proffer of Kartick's services to find a substitute in place of the printer of the Jugantar who had been convicted, and that the Baikun the named in the letter was the convicted printer. The interpretation placed on the word " Thakur " was sought to be fortified by the evidence of Panna Lal, the approver in the Bighati case, to whom I have already referred. He was asked in the course of his examination-in-chief, '' Had you any secret Code " ? His answer was, "yes. We used to call revolvers Thakurs, Indur, Pakhi." The records in this case furnish us with a suggestion as to how this evidence originated. There was nothing as to this in Panna Lal's statements before Mr. Patterson. We first find a reference to the secret code when Panna Lal passed into the hands of Mr. Sati Prosad Ganguly for the purpose of verification, a class of work on which this Magistrate seems to be frequently employed, for in this case we find him conducting verification proceedings in connection with Lolit and Jotin, and he has told us that he verified the confessions in the Bighati case and the Khulna conspiracy case. 114. Now in his confession which was being verified by Mr. Sati Prosad Ganguly, Panna Lal said nothing about Annoda in connection with 202, Cornwallis Street, nor did he say a word about a secret code. And yet, when he was taken by Mr. Ganguly to 202, Cornwallis Street, where Annoda's name was prominently placed on a placard, he volunteers the remark '' we had code words." It is asked with considerable pertinence, what was the association of ideas that prompted this remark ? And yet, when he was taken by Mr. Ganguly to 202, Cornwallis Street, where Annoda's name was prominently placed on a placard, he volunteers the remark '' we had code words." It is asked with considerable pertinence, what was the association of ideas that prompted this remark ? True, the Thakur letter had been found at the search of Annoda's premises, but how did Panna Lal know this or that Annoda had anything to do with the secret meaning ascribed to the word Thakur ? Perhaps a consideration of a few dates may help to the solution of this question. Annoda's house was searched on the 20th of September 1908, and Inspector Mullick of the Criminal Investigation Department in answer to Counsel for the Crown has given us the history of certain documents including the Thakur letter. He has told us that this letter, with other documents, was, after the search, produced before Mr. Denham, the Special Assistant to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Special Department, who took a note of the letters he thought important. Inspector Mullick received this letter and other documents back from Mr. Denham, and retained them in his custody until they were produced before Mr. Duval. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Inspector Mullick's evidence, and, in fact, he had a note of the letters to which he has so deposed. We see, therefore, that the Thakur letter was in the custody of the Criminal Investigation Department. But so was Panna Lal for a short time; he was arrested on the 9th November 1908, and he was for some days kept at Royd Street, the office of the Criminal Investigation Department. Then he was taken by Mr. Ganguly for verification proceedings which were completed on the 22nd of January 1909. 115. I have set out the facts without comment, for I think they furnish the best answer to the problem, how the sight of Annoda's name at 202, Cornwallis Street, prompted Panna Lal to tell the verifying officer that there was a secret code. And, in my opinion, the facts furnish an explanation which shows the worthlessness of Panna Lal's suggestion that Thakur means revolver, a suggestion for which there is no warrant in the voluminous records of this case. And, in my opinion, the facts furnish an explanation which shows the worthlessness of Panna Lal's suggestion that Thakur means revolver, a suggestion for which there is no warrant in the voluminous records of this case. I feel no doubt that the origin of Panna Lal's statement was the Thakur letter, and at the same time it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the reference in that letter was not to a revolvet but to a Thakur in its proper sense. 116. It is necessary that I should now examine this Thakur letter, Ex. 159 The following is the Thakur letter.-ED. Collections in small quantities are being made; besides, there are many other things to do, which will have to be done in conjunction with Jogen, and will take about a month to do them. For this reason I shall be late in going to Calcutta. Ananta Babu will send a money-order of Rs. 45. I have told you the reason. The price of the Thakur is Rs. 40, the expenses of my coming are Rs. 5; total Rs. 45 has been spent Out of this amount Rs. 5 is on my own account. I notice that the person to whom the Thakur belongs is a man of crooked policy; whatever may be had from him lis enough). Pramatha Babu has taken me to, with some minuteness. A superficial reading of it by itself would lend some colour to the prosecution theory, but Mr. Sen-Gupta who has appeared for Annoda very properly insisted that all the documents found at the search of Annoda's premises should be produced, and this ultimately resulted in his being able to place before the Court, Ex. V. The portion of the letter (Ex. V) which referred to the Thakur was as follows.-ED. The generous minded Srijut Sarvananda Baisnab who is a great friend of mine and in whose family I officiate as a priest has taken up an idea to instal the images called Krishna and Radhika, and requested me to entrust you with the duty of making purchase of the said Thakur and Thakurani. The generous minded Srijut Sarvananda Baisnab who is a great friend of mine and in whose family I officiate as a priest has taken up an idea to instal the images called Krishna and Radhika, and requested me to entrust you with the duty of making purchase of the said Thakur and Thakurani. I accordingly send you money and request you either to purchase or order for excellent patterns of (these) images, according to your (own) taste of selection, Krishna made of stone, 12 angulis in height, excluding the pad ma-shan (lotus-shaped stand) and the place of the choora (crest), and Radhika, of a composition of eight metals to match with Him; and what you should see is that there must not be any fissures or chasms in Them.... These people will instal the Thakurs on the last day of the month of Pous. It is (therefore) necessary that they should get the Thakurs 15 or 16 days earlier.... If ready made Thakurs are purchased, they may in all likelihood turn out either broken or cleft. You are therefore requested to have them made by placing an order. If it cost more (the party) is ready to meet it. Please enter into a term with the artist that if the Thakurs made out on order be found in the near future either broken or cleft in any way he shall be held liable for damages. Thakuranis made of eight metals are not available. So that you will please place an order for that too; and you will please keep one of your men waiting at the time of melting, and he should cause a quantity of the eight metals poured into the mould. Just on receipt of (this) letter please let me know the details of informations relating to this matter, and (also) write as to whether arrangements to bring the Thakurs should have to be made from here or there.... In all fairness this document should from the first have been placed by the prosecution on the record, and we owe it simply to the commendable persistence and industry of Mr. Sen-Gupta that this most important document is before the Court. Now, this letter Ex. V is dated the 18th Aughran 1314, that is the 4th of December 1907, while the Thakur letter is written on the 22nd of January 1908. Sen-Gupta that this most important document is before the Court. Now, this letter Ex. V is dated the 18th Aughran 1314, that is the 4th of December 1907, while the Thakur letter is written on the 22nd of January 1908. Both refer to the purchase of a Thakur, and though the prosecution place on the word in the second letter a sinister gloss, it is not suggested that in the first letter the word is patent of any but its ordinary meaning. The first letter points to Ananta Kumar Chakravarty as negotiating the purchase of the Thakur, and the second letter points to Ananta Babu as the person who will pay, and the identity of these two cannot reasonably be doubted, and without prolonging a critical examination of the two letters, it is enough for me to say that I am satisfied both letters refer to the same Thakur, and that the Thakur in the first letter is clearly a Thakur in its ordinary sense, and that the Thakur in the second letter is not a revolver. 117. Though it was on the meaning wrongly imputed to the word Thakur that the prosecution principally relied, they also read in the mention of Baikuntha a reference to Baikuntha Acharya, the convicted printer of the Jugantar. This reading, however, is not only fanciful, but there is reason to think that it is baseless, and that the reference was to Baikuntha Nath Chakravarti, whose connexion with Annoda is shewn by documentary evidence, and who is stated before us to have been his relative. And finally it is said by the prosecution that the offer to find a printer means a printer for the Jugantar. This is mere speculation, and the defence have urged on us an explanation that is at least as plausible, and I am disposed to think more probable, which goes to show that the writer of the letter had not the Jugantat in mind. 118. I have thought it necessary to discuss this letter at length as so much stress was laid on it against both Kartick and Annoda. 118. I have thought it necessary to discuss this letter at length as so much stress was laid on it against both Kartick and Annoda. I have set forth the grounds on which I hold this letter to be innocent of the meaning attributed to it by the prosecution, and I have drawn attention to the dates which appear to me to show how it was sought to bolster up this meaning by the evidence of Panna Lal. There is nothing to show that the Annoda mentioned in Ex. 217 is this accused; on the contrary it seems even more probable that the person referred to is Annoda Charan Roy, said to be an uncle of Tara Nath. That Annoda's name should appear in Ex. 115 as a subscriber to the Jugantar proves nothing, for it is shewn that this paper was bought far and wide. Ex. 274 (1) b is explained by Ex. 314, and it is quite clear that these letters contain no sinister significance. Therefore the case against Annoda must fail. 119. HORENDRA BANERJEE has been treated by the prosecution as a member of the Chatra Bhandar group, though why he should be so ranged is not obvious, as his only connection with the Chatra Bhandar is that he dealt with it, while there is nothing to connect him with the other members of the group. Counsel for the prosecution has utilized this grouping for the purpose of connecting the Chatra Bhandar and the Haludbari groups, but this contention cannot succeed. Lolit's testimony connecting Horen with the conspiracy is unconfirmed, as is that of Jotin Hazra, and it is only the documentary evidence that calls for consideration. The document on which reliance is principally placed is Ex. 162, but I am unable to treat anything in this letter as a confession of guilt by Horen. The utmost that can be said is that it may attribute guilt to Soilen, but certainly not that Horen was a partner in that guilt. The reference to and 1A/251 and 1A /254 in Ex. 161 (1) when read in conjunction with Ex. 87 (2) may give rise to some suspicion, but it is a suspicion that owes its existence and force to lack of knowledge. This suspicion may have been worthy of further investigation, but as things stand, we have no clear indication what these numbers mean. 161 (1) when read in conjunction with Ex. 87 (2) may give rise to some suspicion, but it is a suspicion that owes its existence and force to lack of knowledge. This suspicion may have been worthy of further investigation, but as things stand, we have no clear indication what these numbers mean. The document in which they have been found is a note book, and the entries in it point to Horen's being concerned in some business, possibly that of a broker. In two instances I find names of persons with their addresses given in conjunction with these supposed symbols. Thus I find 1A/258 evidently referring to Radha Benode Bose, 35-1-1, Mondol Street, Pathuriaghata, and 1A/259 to Amrita Lal Banerjee, 4-1, Gomesh Lane, Calcutta. Now neither of these men is named as a conspirator in the charge, nor is there any evidence led or suggestion made that they are not perfectly respectable individuals. No endeavour has been made to explain who or what they are, and in the circumstances, it would be wrong for us to allow the suspicion of the prosecution to take the place of proof. In my opinion the case against Horen fails. 120. The last of this so-called Chatra Bhandar group is NORENDRA NATH BOSE: why he should have been so classed is not clear, unless it was hoped by this means to establish a connection with the Kidderpore group through Bimola Deb, an idea that has failed in consequence of the prosecution's determination not to proceed with the case against Bimola. Of the overt acts set forth in the complaint, Lolit would only connect him with the murder of Nanda Lal Banerjee and the Netra dacoity, but as to neither is there any corroboration. That Noren was at Chedda-pathar and at Benares has not been denied, but it is urged that his presence at those places implies nothing to his detriment. First, I will take up the prosecution case as to Cheddapathar. It is said by the prosecution that it was used as a place for the conspirators to meet, and for arms to be stored, and that the work there was divided, some for instance recruiting Bengalis, some Santhals. First, I will take up the prosecution case as to Cheddapathar. It is said by the prosecution that it was used as a place for the conspirators to meet, and for arms to be stored, and that the work there was divided, some for instance recruiting Bengalis, some Santhals. But there is nothing that supports this beyond Lolit's word, and it is at least problematical whether Lolit ever was there, when regard is had to the variance in his successive stories, and the difficulty of reconciling his description with the place as it actually is. I do not overlook the fact that evidence is given, and notably by Keshab Chandra Banerjee, of Lolit's having been there. Now Keshab left Cheddapathar last Bhadra; of that there seems to be no doubt. But when he goes on to say, as he does in his examination-in-chief, that Lolit was there in Magh or Falgoon, preceding the Bhadra in which he left, he is obviously wrong, for not only was Lolit then in custody, but the prosecution case is that it was in 1906, not 1909 that Lolit was there. But even if Lolit was there,- and I will assume he was,-the evidence does not disclose anything sinister in the life at Cheddapathar. The young men seem to have erected a khamai-bari, and to have cut down the surrounding jungle with a view to reclaiming land for cultivation. It cannot be suggested that there is anything that shows that arms were stored there, and I say this notwithstanding the evidence in all seriousness adduced before us that five bamboo bows were bought from one of the neighbouring jungle folk, and even though the story as to one revolver be credited. 121. Then there is the evidence of Noren's presence at Benares to be considered. It is not denied, on the contrary it is the case for the defence, that Noren took his old and ailing mother to Benares, and this, it is said, was a natural thing for him to do, regard being had to his mother's state. He further says that he started a shop there, and this agrees with the prosecution story. But he denies that this was done, as the prosecution say, with conspiracy funds, nor is there any trustworthy evidence in support of the prosecution theory. He further says that he started a shop there, and this agrees with the prosecution story. But he denies that this was done, as the prosecution say, with conspiracy funds, nor is there any trustworthy evidence in support of the prosecution theory. The evidence is that Noren started the shop in September 1908, and attended to it until September 1909, when it was sold. Reliance is in fact placed on this to refute Lolit's story that Noren was at the Netra dacoity, for it is urged that it is difficult to believe that Noren should have left his shop at Benares to attend the dacoity. The refutation is not conclusive, but the facts cast grave doubt on the truth of Lolit's story, more especially when regard is had to the statement of Kali Krishna Chakravarty, prosecution witness No. 79, who declares that Noren was all through at Benares. Nothing obviously can be made of the fact that Noren dealt with the Chatra Bhandar. 122. Ex. 103 (5) is sought to be used against him and principally because it contains the name " Lolit" and because it indicates that on the 4th and 5th October 1909, he met "Hrishikesh" and "Gonesh." There is nothing to show what Lolit is here intended, or that Gonesh is the accused in this case, but the suggestion that Hrishikesh is Hrishikesh Kanjilal, the accused in the Alipur Bomb Case, is reckless, seeing that Hrishikesh Kanjilal was then, and for months before had been, in prison. The case against Noren fails. 123. The next group consists of MONMATHO NATH BISWAS, BIDHD BHUSAN BISWAS, RAMPADA MUKHERJEE and BHUPENDRA NATH RAI CHOWDHURY, who are shewn to have been associated at Rampore Boalia in the District of Rajshahye where they were fellow students. 124. Mr. P. L. Roy included Monmatho Nath Biswas and Bidhu Bhusan Biswas in the Haludbari group, but for that I have shewn there was no justification. According to the evidence in this case their activities were confined to Rajshahye. Rampada Mukherjee and Bhupendra Nath Rai Chowdhury were treated by the Counsel for the Crown as constituting the Raita group, but their only association with Raita is the mention of their names in connection with the Raita dacoity in Sushil's retracted confession. According to the evidence in this case their activities were confined to Rajshahye. Rampada Mukherjee and Bhupendra Nath Rai Chowdhury were treated by the Counsel for the Crown as constituting the Raita group, but their only association with Raita is the mention of their names in connection with the Raita dacoity in Sushil's retracted confession. This dacoity was committed as far back as November 1908; no steps have been taken against these accused on the basis of their being concerned in that offence, and there is no evidence against either of them of being so concerned, and in the circumstances this retracted confession certainly would not support a conviction against them. Therefore their being grouped as connected with Raita rests on no sound foundation. It is in these circumstances that I think these four accused ought to be considered as the Rajshahye group, and in the view I take of the evidence it is unnecessary to treat their cases at length. 125. MONMATHO is not even named by Lolit in his confession though he there names certain persons as conspirators who reside in Chitli-Beliashishi. In his deposition before Mr. Duval however he names him as a conspirator, and also here. But beyond so naming him with a very great number of others he says nothing of him and does not implicate him in anything specific. It is to be noticed that between the date of Lolit's confession and deposition, Monmatho had been arrested for the Haludbari dacoity. Then what other evidence is there against Monmatho ? Merely that of association with fellow students at Rajshahye and lathi play. The evidence falls far short of establishing that these four youths, who stand isolated from the rest of the accused, were members of the conspiracy charged in this case. I do not overlook Bhupen's diary, but I have carefully taken it into consideration in arriving at the conclusion I have expressed. The case against Monmatho fails. 126. The case against BIDHU BHUSHAN BISWAS of association in Rajshahye is substantially the same as that against Monmatho. In addition to that Lolit declares that after the Netra dacoity Bidhu, having met him at 10-1, Mussulmanpara Lane, took him to Beliashishi. But, apart from the absence of any corroboration, Lolit's story is open to grave doubt. 126. The case against BIDHU BHUSHAN BISWAS of association in Rajshahye is substantially the same as that against Monmatho. In addition to that Lolit declares that after the Netra dacoity Bidhu, having met him at 10-1, Mussulmanpara Lane, took him to Beliashishi. But, apart from the absence of any corroboration, Lolit's story is open to grave doubt. No adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that Sushil and Bidhu, who were cousins, were seen together at Nattore, even if credence. be given to the somewhat improbable story of the witness who declares he so saw them. The case against him fails. 127. Against RAMPADA MUKHERJEE the evidence is even weaker, and there is nothing against him on which a conviction could be based. The case against him fails. 128. BHUPENDRA NATH RAI CHOWDHURY is the author of the diary to which I have already referred. Sushil mentions him in his confession in connection with Raita, and some reliance has been placed on the school register for this purpose, but the confession has been retracted and Sushil afterwards failed to identify Bhupen. It is obviously impossible to hold that Bhupen was at Raita. The Exhibits do not advance the case against Bhupen, nor does the fact of his previous conviction. The result is that in my opinion the prosecution have failed to shew his membership of this conspiracy. 129. It cannot. I think, be disputed that these four young Rajshahye men are, or have been troublesome characters, and the description "rowdies" attributed to some of them in Bhupen's diary is probably not far wide of the mark. But that is a different matter from holding them members of the particular conspiracy to wage war against the King: the prosecution have failed to link them with any of the other accused, nor have they shewn them to be parties to the conspiracy charged in this case. 130. This then ends the case against all the accused, and the result is we all hold the charge under sec. 121Aof the Penal Code established against Soilen Das, Sushil Biswas, Atul Mukherjee, Gonesh Das, Soilendra Nath Chatterjee and Upendra Kristo Deb. 131. The rest of the accused must, in our opinion, be acquitted of the charges against them, and, with the exception of those at present serving sentences that have been inflicted on them, they must be set at liberty as the law directs. 131. The rest of the accused must, in our opinion, be acquitted of the charges against them, and, with the exception of those at present serving sentences that have been inflicted on them, they must be set at liberty as the law directs. 132. It only remains to consider what sentences should be passed on those whom the Court holds guilty of the offence with which they stand charged. The sentence that they have merited is in our opinion eight years' transportation from this date, and that is the sentence we would have passed, but for the fact that they are already undergoing sentences as the result of their conviction in the Haludbari case; we must have regard to these sentences and to the somewhat inconvenient provisions of sees. 397 and 398 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and this accounts for the form in which our sentence is framed. 133. The Court sentences Soilen Das and Sushil Biswas to two years' rigorous imprisonment, and directs that the sentence on each shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced in the Haludbari case, and the Court sentences Atul Mukherjee, Gonesh Das, Soilendra Nath Chatterjee and Upendra Kristo Deb to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and directs that the sentence on each shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced in the Haludbari case. I would only add my appreciation of the admirable temper with which this long and anxious case has been conducted on both sides, and my acknowledgment of the assistance we have received.