The Alipore Bomb Trial

SEVENTEENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Das continuing his address said that when the Court rose on Thursday, he was dealing with the case of Abinash Chunder Bhattacharjee and was referring to the two books "Mukti Kon Pathe " and " The modern Art of War," which, according to the case for the prosecution, Abinash published.

     It would be more convenient if he gave their Lordships all the points there were in the evidence as regards the connection of Abinash with the Jugantar. That evidence began with the evidence of Purina Chunder Lahiri when he said that soon after the — Jugantar was started in June 1906, he went to make enquiries at 27, Kanai ball Dhur's Street, and there saw Upendra Lull Dutt and Ahinash Chunder Bhattacharjee. Counsel did not admit that and would not only show that documentary evidence was against it, hut that the statement of Purna Chunder Lahiri itself was very doubtful.

Page 258

     After reading Purna Chunder Lahiri’s evidence on that point, Mr. Das said that in July 1907, the Chief Presidency Magistrate passed an order confiscating the Sadhana Press, and that press was, as a matter of fact, confiscated on the 27^th July 1907. Abinash then moved the High Court and the order of confiscation was set aside. That case was reported in 10 Calcutta Weekly Notes, page 1046.

     Carnduff J.―When was that ?

     Mr. Das.—On the 6^th August, 1907.

     The Chief Justice.—It was set aside on the ground that there was no power to confiscate ?

     Mr. Das.—Yes; also on the ground that it was done without any notice to Abinash. I don't argue that the order setting aside the confiscation shows that Abinash was innocent of everything. My point is that the Press was, as a matter of fact, confiscated and that it remained under confiscation and that the issue of the Jugantar of the 30^th July, in respect of which Abinash was prosecuted, was not from Abinash’s press at all. That particular issue of the Jugantar was printed at the Kashab Printing Works with which Abinash had nothing to do. On the 2^nd September 1907, Abinash was acquitted and on the 3^rd , 4^th or 5^th of that month he sold the press to Nikhileswar.

     From September to the middle of November ..there was no issue of the Jugantar. This was corroborated by the issue of ‘ the Jugantor of the 16^th November 1907 in which there was a notice to subscribers. That notice had not been translated, but if their Lordships did not mind, Counsel would translate it. It was to this effect: " submission by the Jugantar to the subscribers. After the conviction of Basanta Kumar Bhattacharjee no other printer having been available the Jugantar was not printed till now." The last paragraph of that notice stated :—On account of the change of manager, money-orders and value payable parcels are lying in the post office. That money on account of the change of manager, the conductors of the Jugantar have not been able to get and for that reason the conductors have not been able to send the Jugantar to the subscribers." ,

     That, Counsel submitted, corroborated Abinash’s case that he gave up all connection with the Jugantar after the 2^nd September. Further there were two letters which made that fact perfectly clear. One was a letter dated the 7^th November 1907 from Abinash to the postal authorities informing them that he had severed all connection with the Jugantar, and requesting them to make over all letters etc., in his name to the present manager of the Jugantar. Reading this in connection with the notice, it made things perfectly clear. Abinash did not sever his connection with the Jugantar

Page 259

in November but in September and as the Jugantar people could not get letters, money orders and parcels they asked Abinash to write that letter in November. The other letter was dated the 13^th November 1907, and was from Tara Nath of the Jugantar to the postal authorities informing them that the Jugantar people complained that letters, money orders and parcels had not been sent. '1`he fact that there was no issue of the Jugantar between September and the middle of November, was also clear from the declaration of the printer. There was no declaration whatever by Abinash at any time except his declaration in May 1907, that he was the owner of the Sadhana Press. Counsel then submitted that the copies of the books "Mukti Kon Pathe" and "The Modern Art of War" alleged by the proscecution to have been found in the garden, were not found there but at 4, Harrison Road.

     The Chief Justice :—I don’t understand it to be said that "the Modern Art of War" is seditious ?

     Mr. Das.—No.

     The Chief Justice.—But as regards "Mukti Kone Pathe” ?

     Mr. Das.—The Sessions Judge says it is admitted to be seditious. It is a reprint of certain articles in the Jugantar and is published in book form. The articles are of such a nature that your Lordships may hold them to be seditious while other Judges may hold them to be not seditious.

     Counsel then read the portion of the Sessions Judge's judgment referring to Abinash as well as the opinions of the Assessors, both of whom acquitted him.

     Mr. Das than dealt with the case of Sudhir Kumar Sarkar who was also acquitted by both Assessors.

     After reading the evidence of the watch witnesses, Mr. Das went on to deal with the documents showing Sudhir’s presence in Calcutta. The confession of Sudhir was very clear on that point and he stated that he was not in Calcutta. Exhibit 151 was a letter dated the 23^rd April. It was a letter supposed to have been written by Indra Bhusan to Sishir in Bombay in which it was stated "Sudhir Babu has not come as yet." The case for the prosecution was that the Sudhir there referred to the present appellant, while the case for the defence was that it did not refer to the appellant. If it referred to the present appellant it showed that on the 23^rd he had not come to Calcutta. From exhibit 1262 it appeared that be- fore the 2^nd May, Sudhir was at Khulna. From the evidence of Narendra Sircar it was clear that Sudhir was at Khulna on the 7^th March and that he was there up till the 20^th .

     Continuing Mr. Das said that there were two classes of evidence —evidence of the watch witnesses and opposed to that were exhibits

Page 260

151 and 1262 and the evidence of Narendra Sircar. The Sessions Judge had dealt with that part of the case in one line where he had said that the identification of these witnesses must be received with caution. In view of the opinion expressed by the Sessions Judge, Counsel would not deal with this part of the case any longer.

     Mr. Das next dealt with the exhibits as against Sudhir.

Page 261