1. Sir Chimanlal for accused No. 2 in this case asks that the trial of his client should be separated from the trial of accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 is the printer of the pamphlet, which is the subject matter of the charge, and accused No. 1 is its publisher. He contends that there is evidence in the case affecting accused No. 1 only, which might confuse the jury and that his client would be prejudiced, if he is tried along with accused No. 1. The Advocate General opposes the application. There are, undoubtedly, considerations which go against an application of this kind. First of all, the two accused have been committed jointly by the Committing Magistrate, as opposed to the commitment of the author of the pamphlet who was committed separately; and certainly I should have thought that if the defence really had an anticipation of prejudice in a joint trial, that would have been a stage when an application could have been put forward, so that the Magistrate could have committed the two accused separately. Then, secondly, there is the consideration of the time taken for the trial by this Court. There has already been one trial in regard to the writer of the pamphlet, and if we are to have separate trials for the printer and publisher, undoubtedly more time of the Court will be taken up than if there is a joint trial. In a joint trial in cases of this kind the printer and publisher are concerned in the same transaction in regard to the publication of the pamphlet, and I know that there have been cases, where the author, the printer and publisher have all been tried together or, at any rate, the author and the publisher. More objection can be raised to the joint trial of the author with the printer or publisher than can. I think, legitimately be urged against a joint trial of the printer and publisher, because they are both on very much the same footing with regard to being able to raise pleas, that possibly the author himself could not raise. This is moreover a trial by a special jury, and I do not think there is a likelihood that they will take the evidence that affects only one accused into consideration against the other accused. I do not think that there are adequate grounds for the application. I accordingly reject it.