Twelfth Day's Proceedings TWELVTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS        His Lordship resumed the hearing of the reference when the Advocate-General continued to deal with the case against Susil Kumar Sen, one of the Sen Brothers of Sylhet. Page 410      While the Advocate—Genera1 was referring to the formulas contained in two notes found at Sylhet, his Lordship enquired whether there was anything to show that these formulae tallied with those found in the garden at Calcutta.      The Advocate-General replied that exhibit 34, a book on "Explosives" found in the garden, contained word for word the formulae found in the Sylhet exhibits and this fact

Thirteenth Day's Proceedings THIRTEENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS        His Lordship resumed the further hearing of the reference in the Alipore Bomb Case.      The Advocate-General had finished his argument as regards the first four accused, Sailen, Krishnajiban, Susil and Biren, and he continued his argument in the case against Indra Nath Nundi. The incriminating circumstances against this accused was his connection with the "Chhattra Bhandar," with the "Jugantar" newspaper and his relations with Taranath Roy Chowdhuri. This Taranath used to live at 4 Raja's Lane and on a search being made arms and ammunition were found in a trunk said to belong to Taranath.

FIFTEENTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS   On Tuesday, when the Court rose, Mr. Das was dealing with the cases of those appellants who had not made any confession in the lower Court. Counsel First took up the case of Poresh Chunder Moulik and dealt with the exhibits against him and the evidence of watch witnesses. It had been said that Barin in his confession referred to Paresh as one of the men in the garden. Counsel said that Barin was asked who were the men in the garden at the time he was arrested and he named Paresh as one of the men who were being then instructed on religious and political subjects. Mr. Das said that this certainly did not go

List of documents admitted in evidence for the prosecution. ( Circular order No. 6 of 18th November 1901 ) Distinguishing mark or number Description of document By whom filed Date of admission. Whether admitted after or without objection. Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ex. 1 ... Sanction for prosecution of 33 persons signed by Chief Secretary to Government of Bengal Prosecution 18th May '08 After objection. Ex. 2 to 2... 1 - 12 Search List of 32 Muraripookar Road , Manicktolla of May 2nd 1st

-44_Twenty Fifth Day^s Proceedings.htm TWENTY-FIFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS Mr. Norton continuing his address on behalf of the Crown said that when the court rose on Saturday he had brought their Lordship to the 15th March, 1906, as being the date on which the first issue of the "Yugantar" appeared. In connection with that the registration of the "Yugantar " under the Press Act was on the 12th March. It was stated to have been printed at the Kamala Press at 36, Bonomali Sircar’s Street. So regarding the details of the "Yugantar" he did not propose to trouble their Lordships at resent, but he would have to deal with the object and motives of the "Yugantar" at greater length when he would come to

FOURTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS   Mr. Norton who argued on the question raised as to the Government authority to charge under section 121 I. P. Code said that the Government authority did not specifically give sanction to prosecute under section 121, but that authority was intended to invest Inspector Purno Chunder Biswas with the power of adding charge under section 121 only. As to the commitment by Mr. Birley the question was did he commit legally or without authority. Counsel suggested Mr. Birley was entitled to add the charge under section 121 just as much as Inspector Biswas was entitled to add it to his complaint. If Mr. Birley was in law so

TWENTIETH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS   Mr. Das continuing his address said that on Monday he was dealing with the case of Nirapado Roy and was dealing with the watch witnesses. Counsel dealt with the evidence of the watch witnesses Suresh, Satish and Surat Palit. Mr. Das next dealt with the exhibits. Exhibit No. 76 was a note book containing not the name of Nirapada., but of Nirmal The case for the prosecution was that Nirmal was the name of Nirapada. Counsel could not say if there was any evidence at all in the record with regard to that. The prosecution called certain witnesses from Midnapur and two of them referred to Nirapada as Nirmal. They did

Twenty Nineth Day's Proceedings TWENTY-NINTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS         Mr. Norton continuing his address on behalf of the Crown said that on Thursday he was seeking to show that Mr. Birley in recording the confessions, which he dig on the 4th May was competent under the law. to record them under Section 164, inasmuch as the law enabled him so to do, because at that time it was impossible, that he could take cognizance of the offences for which these men were being tried. Page 298      Mr. Norton then went on to say that his argument was that Mr. Birley was well within his rights when he acted under section 164. He based his argument on the fact

Twenty Seventh Day's Proceedings THIRTY-SEVENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS         Mr. Norton continuing his address on behalf of the Crown referred to the marks on Indra Nath’s body and read the evidence relating to them. It was incumbent on the defence to have given substantial evidence with regard to the so called marks and thus to have `given the Crown an opportunity of testing the truth or otherwise of the story put forward as regards the marks on his body. As regards Indra Nath’s connection with the Chatra Bhandar it was admitted that he was the Secretary of that Association, 40 per cent of the earnings of which were to be set aside for the good of the country. Ind

-84_Reference-Fifteenth Day^s Proceedings.htm FIFTEENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS DEFENCE REPLY. Babu Bejoy Krishna Bose, vakil, was called upon to reply on behalf of Krishna Jibon Sanyal and Sailendra Nath Bose. He said :—My Lord, so far as my two clients are concerned, I need not take up your Lordship’s time by replying to all the general observations made by the learned Advocate-General except a few which directly concern. my clients. But I can not altogether remain silent and let the opportunity pass without strongly protesting against certain observations made by the Counsel as showing the attitude of mind with which he approached the consideration of this case. Today, my Lord, at 3-20 p