1. This is a criminal revision filed on behalf of three persons, Richpal Singh, Khub Singh and Shiamsundar Lal who have been required to furnish security by a Magistrate under Section 110(f), Cr.P.C. for a period of three years and on a reference the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced them to imprisonment on failure to furnish the security required. Various points have been taken in revision in regard to the admissibility of different items of evidence and of different confessions. The facts which gave rise to this proceeding are that on the 6th December 1932 a C.I.D. officer visited Lakhauti College in Bulandsbahr District and arrested the accused Khuh Singh. This enquiry was made as a, result of an assault on a railway train by certain other persons. On the 9th December 1932 the accused Khub Singh was brought before a Magistrate at 7 a.m., and the Magistrate gave him time until 12 noon to reflect on the matter before making a confession and the Magistrate then gave him the usual cautions and recorded his confession that day. This accused made a full confession that he took part in revolutionary activities with the other two accused and on the 24th December 1932 this accused took the Magistrate to a certain place in the jungle where he showed the Magistrate where the conspirators had been indulging in target shooting. The confession of this accused has been corroborated by evidence showing that a number of chemicals and other materials had been stolen from the laboratory and from the house of Khub Singh certain chemicals were recovered on a search. One of the arguments used by learned Counsel is that these chemicals are of no importance because he alleges that the certificate of the Chemical Examiner states that these chemicals could not be used for bombs. On reference to the certificate of the Chemical Examiner f find that learned Counsel is not accurate. The certificate states that sodium may be used to cause an explosion within a closed receptacle and that sulphuric acid (strong) la used as one of the constituents in certain types of bombs. Further it is obvious that sulphuric acid might be used and indeed frequently has been used as a very dangerous missile. The result of throwing sulphuric acid on the body of any lietim is that the body is very severely burnt and disfigured.
2. The chief argument addressed to me in regard to this confession was that it was obtained by coercion. The allegation made was that on the 6th December 1932, the date of arrest, the accused Khub Singh was beaten by the police with sticks and certain witnesses were produced six months later in June 1933 to state that they were present when the beating took place. Now no complaint was made at the time and it was not until the 24th January 1933 that this story was first put forward by the father of this accused in an affidavit and in application to this Court. In that pro-eeeding the father does not state who gave him the information. The accused Khub Singh was admitted to the jail on the 9th December 1932, that is, within three days of the alleged beating. Now, the procedure on admission of an accused person to jail is that the body of the accused person is examined by the assistant surgeon in charge of the jail to see if there are any marks of injuries on it and if there are any such marks a note is made in the admission register. No evidence was called for defence of the admission register or of the assistant surgeon. Presumably therefore any such Evidence would not have supported the story for the defence. Learned Counsel argued that it was possible for Khub Singh to be beaten with sticks on the 6th December and three days later no marks would be visible. I do not consider that this is at all probable. Learned Counsel did not attempt to show me from any work on medical jurisprudence that this theory was correct. The lower Courts have rejected the story that Khub Singh was beaten and I see no reason to differ from them in revision.
3. The next point was that there was internal evidence in the confession to show that it was not genuine. The point on which counsel relied was that the confession stated that Richpal Singh accused came to Lakhauti from August to October 1930 and counsel states that Richpal Singh was arrested in May 1930. The confession was made 21/2 years after the matter under narration and it is quite easy for a man to make an error as regards the year in question. I do not think that any importance can be attached to the statement that these events happened in. 1930. It is quite possible that the events happened is the year 1929 and that the accused made a slip in regard to the year. His confession was a long one extending over a large number of pages and he cannot be expected to be accurate in all the details. Objection was taken as regards the other accused on a highly technical point that under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act the confession of Khub Singh should not be taken into account against the other accused because that section begins by stating : When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence.' The argument is that the proceedings before the Magistrate did not amount to a trial and were not in regard to an offence and that on the definition of 'offence' in the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 30 of the Evidence Act would not apply. It is to be noted that the Evidence Act does not state that the definition of the Criminal Procedure Code of an offence is to apply to the Evidence Act. The Evidence Act is a much older Code of the year 1872 and the definition in question apparently did not exist at the time that the Evidence Act was framed. The explanation to Section 30 of the Evidence Act shows that the word 'offence' is used in a wider sense than the technical definition as the explanation states that 'offence' as used in this section includes the abetment or attempt to commit the offence. I consider that there is no reason to hold that Section 30 of the Evidence Act may not be applied to a case like the present where there is a proceeding under Section 110, Criminal P.C., against a number of persons, one of whom has made a confession implicating other persons whose conduct is also the subject of an enquiry. Another reason which leads me to this conclusion is the provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 117(2) which states as follows:
Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable where the order requires security for keeping the peace, in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases; and where the order requires security for good behaviour in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trials and recording Evidence in warrant cases, except that no charge need be framed.
4. This shows that the procedure should be that of a warrant case, and accordingly I consider that the procedure of Section 30 of the Evidence Act would apply. The objection was taken that there was little evidence to support the confession of Khub Singh. The Court below mentions that 39 witnesses were called for the prosecution. Of those witnesses I find that P.W. 28, Suaj Chandra, P.W. 33, Bishambar, and P.W. 39 Balraj all stated that they took part in the criminal conspiracy for revolutionary purposes with the three accused. There is indeed ample evidence on the record for the findings at which the Courts below have arrived. I consider that no ground in revision has been made out. I accordingly dismiss this application in revision.