-52_Thirty Third Day^s Proceedings.htm THIRTY-THIRD DAY’S PROCEEDINGS Mr. Norton continuing his address on behalf of the Crown said that when their Lordships rose on Tuesday he was dealing with the incident at 134:, Harrison Road. In this connection Counsel read the evidence of Balai Chand Ganguli and Suresh Chandra Ghose and said that there was no conflict between their statements. Balai was in a position to mention Hem Chandra Dass by name to Suresh, and the moment the name was mentioned Suresh had reasons of his own for connecting the name with that of the man who came from Midnapore. Unless Inspector Purna. Chandra Biswas was engaged in a conspiracy to swear away the liberties of innoc

FORTY-FIFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS   Mr. Das continuing his argument said that when the Court rose on Friday he was dealing with the case of Biren and had put before their Lordships the letter which was the most important and the most valuable. There were certain other letters to which reference had been made by his learned friend some of which were not evidence at all. If for instance their Lordships looked at exhibits 520-83 that was a letter written by somebody whose name did not appear, to Nogendro. Another letter 520-11 was written by a man named Probodh to Biren. Counsel referred to the other letters and said that these were all the docu

-34_Fifteenth Day^s Proceedings.htm 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 against Pa

Twenty - Third Day's Proceedings THIRTY-THIRD DAY’S PROCEEDINGS         Mr. Norton continuing his address on behalf of the Crown said that when their Lordships rose on Tuesday he was dealing with the incident at 134:, Harrison Road. In this connection Counsel read the evidence of Balai Chand Ganguli and Suresh Chandra Ghose and said that there was no conflict between their statements. Balai was in a position to mention Hem Chandra Dass by name to Suresh, and the moment the name was mentioned Suresh had reasons of his own for connecting the name with that of the man who came from Midnapore. Unless Inspector Purna. Chandra Biswas was engaged in a conspiracy to swea

-77_Reference-Eighth Day^s Proceedings.htm EIGHTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS His Lordship resumed The Advocate-General continuing his address, referred to some more incriminating evidence against Krishnajiban Sanyal. He then took up the case of the appellant Sailendra Nath Bose who was convicted by the Sessions Judge of Alipore under sections 121A. and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced (to transportation for life. The case against this appellant, said the Advocate-General, was simple. There was ample evidence to prove his connection with the garden, No. 48, Grey Street, the Yugantar and Seal’s Lodge at Deoghur. To show this appellant’s connection with the garden, the Advocate-General

Twenty - First Day's Proceedings FORTY-FIRST DAY'S PROCEEDINGS        Mr. Norton continuing his address on behalf of the Crown in the case against Birendra Nath Sen said that among the documents found at the search of this appellant’s house at Sylhet was a letter addressed to Birendra by one Probodh .Of whom the Crown knew nothing. This letter was clearly an answer to a post card written by Birendra to Probodh, and it breathed a spirit of insubordination to the constituted authority of the land. Counsel submitted that the letter went to show that the views entertained were really those of Birendra and it showed further that he was in entire sympathy with the v

FIFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS   Mr. Das, continuing his address, said that when the court rose on Thursday he was dealing with the confession of Barindra Kumar Ghose. There was one point of view from which he desired their Lordships should consider this question of the admissibility of the confession. Apart altogether from the question as to whether it could he admissible under any other section of the Evidence Act his submission was that their Lordships would remember that at the time when these confessions were recorded the Magistrate was in seisin of the case and that he began the enquiry as it were by taking these statements from the accused p

SECOND DAY’S HEARING   Mr. C. R. Das continuing his address said that when the Court rose on Monday he was dealing with the point of jurisdiction. Before he left the point of the want of jurisdiction generally as apart from the particular charge, he desired to point out the evidence of certain witnesses with reference to what transpired before Mr. Thornhill. The first witness was Inspector Purna Chandra Biswas who said that the complaint was written by the Commissioner of Police and presented by him to Mr. Thornhill. It was against Arabinda's "gang of outlaws." He produced 7 men before Mr. Thornhill on the 5th May and they were sent to Alipore.

ELEVENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS   Mr. Das continuing his address said that with regard to the interpretation of section 73 of the Evidence Act, he found that the history of the section showed that what was intended to be done was that witnesses should he allowed to compare documents in court, and inasmuch as it was at one time doubted whether the court or jury could look into such a document, it was especially provided by the Act. In support of that view Counsel cited) a case in 10, Moore’s Appeals. That was a Privy Council case and was a decision on this point.      Their Lordships would remember the words of the English Statute which referre

-48_Twenty Nineth Day^s Proceedings.htm 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 that Mr. Thornhill merely acted as a c