Judgement Petition for special leave to appeal from convictions and sentences of death confirmed by the High Court on June 25, 1926. The five petitioners and twenty-two others were charged under the following eight charges, stated shortly— (1.) That between January 22 and September, 1924, at certain named places they jointly and severally agreed with one another and with some or all of other persons named in a schedule, to do or cause to 64 Law. Rep. 54 Ind. App. 45 ( 1926- 1927) Mukand Singh V. King-Emperor 165 be done illegal acts, to wit (i.) import and possess arms and ammunition ; (ii.) commit and attempt to commit murder; (iii.) cause grievous hurt; and (iv.) commit robbery and dacoity, which are offences punishable under ss. 19 and 20 of the Indian Arms Act (XI. of 1878), ss. 302, 307, 326, 392, 394 to 398, of the Indian Penal Code with death, transportation or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more, and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 120B and s. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. (Sect. 120B was inserted in the Code by Act VIII. of 1913, and provides for a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence; s. 109 provides for the abetment of offences.) (2.) That they in conspiracy with the said persons in pursuance of the afore-mentioned conspiracy did (i.) go about armed without a licence contrary to s. 13 of the Act; (ii.) have in their possession or control firearms and ammunition, and thereby committed offences punishable under ss. 19 and 20 of the Indian Arms Act (XI. of 1878) read with ss. 120B, 109, 114 to 116, of the Indian Penal Code. (3.) That they, in conspiracy with the said persons in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy committed murders, and among others caused the death of seven specified persons at dates between March, 1923, and April, 1924, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 302 read with ss. 120B, 109, 114 to 116, of the Indian Penal Code. Charges 4 to 8 charged that they in conspiracy with the said persons in pursuance of the said conspiracy committed specified robberies, caused grievous hurt to specified persons, committed eight acts of dacoity on named dates between February, 1923, and February, 1924, and committed three specified acts of dacoity between March, 1923, and April, 1924, in which murders were committed. Charges 4 to 8 charged that they in conspiracy with the said persons in pursuance of the said conspiracy committed specified robberies, caused grievous hurt to specified persons, committed eight acts of dacoity on named dates between February, 1923, and February, 1924, and committed three specified acts of dacoity between March, 1923, and April, 1924, in which murders were committed. The petitioners who were tried together with the other twenty-two persons on all the above charges by the Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore were found guilty under charge (3.) of three murders therein specified committed on or about the night of April 10, 1924; they were sentenced to death under s. 302 read with s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court at Lahore (on June 25, 1926) confirmed the convictions and sentences. The learned judges (Broadway and Zafar Ali JJ.) held, on the question of an alleged misjoinder of charges, that charges 2 to 8 merely recited the various incidents or offences committed in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy first charged, and that there 1 was no illegality in the joint trial. The five petitioners now prayed for special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. 1926. Nov. 14. De Gruyther K.C. (W attach with him) for the petitioners. The joint trial of the petitioners on eight different charges, which among others included seven charges of murder, two of attempted murder, four of robbery, two of grievous hurt, and eleven of dacoity, was contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ss. 233, 234, 235. In effect the petitioners were tried for more than three murders, apart from other offences committed within one year. Having regard to the decision of the Board in Subramania Iyer v. The King-Emperor (( 1901) L. R. 28 I. A. 257.) the trial was illegal, and the petitioners are entitled to special leave to appeal. Dunne K.C. That decision is distinguishable since s. 120B of the Penal Code making criminal conspiracy an offence was added only in 1913. De Gruyther K.C. In principle the decision applies; had the petitioners been charged only with a criminal conspiracy and convicted merely on that charge, the matter would be different. 64 Law. Rep. 54 Ind. App. 45 ( 1926- 1927) Mukand Singh V. King-Emperor 166 Dunne K.C. (Kenworthy Brown with him) for the Crown were not further called on. De Gruyther K.C. In principle the decision applies; had the petitioners been charged only with a criminal conspiracy and convicted merely on that charge, the matter would be different. 64 Law. Rep. 54 Ind. App. 45 ( 1926- 1927) Mukand Singh V. King-Emperor 166 Dunne K.C. (Kenworthy Brown with him) for the Crown were not further called on. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by VISCOUNT HALDANE, who said merely that the petition must be dismissed.