HC Deb 15 June 1911 vol 26 cc1656-8
Mr. O'GRADY

asked the Under-Secretary for India whether he is aware that in what is known as the Howrah Gang trial at Calcutta the proceedings lasted for 176 days in all; that about forty accused persons were kept in custody for more than a year; that out of thirty-nine who appealed to the High Court thirty-three were acquitted; that one prisoner became insane while in custody, and another died on the morning of his acquittal; that the case for the prosecution was declared by the High Court to rest mainly upon the statements of two informers, whose evidence and character were utterly untrustworthy; whether he can state who was responsible for advising this prosecution; and whether it is proposed to leave the conduct of such prosecutions in the future in the same hands?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu)

My hon. Friend's recital of the facts is substantially correct, if mention be added of the fact that the High Court found that a conspiracy did exist, and convicted six of the accused persons. As regards the last part of the question, a local government in such a case necessarily consults those officers who are its constituted legal advisers. In this case the Bengal Government also took the advice of a leading criminal counsel.

Mr. O'GRADY

asked whether the Secretary of State has any official information that the charge brought against a number of the King's subjects in Bengal of tampering with the loyalty of the 10th Jats regiment completely broke down before the High Court of Calcutta, and that the whole of the accused were acquitted on the ground that the evidence against them rested upon the statements of informers already shown to be thoroughly untrustworthy in the Howrah Gang case; whether this prosecution was launched at a private inquiry; whether the accused were present and had any opportunity of cross-examining the informers; whether the evidence of the informers was submitted to the legal advisers of the Government of Bengal before the prosecution was sanctioned; and whether it is proposed to take any proceedings for perjury, or otherwise, against these informers?

Mr. MONTAGU

In the case to which my hon. Friend refers the prosecution was withdrawn by the Public Prosecutor under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the judges ordered an acquittal. The inquiry into the case was instituted under Act XIV. of 1908, and was in no sense a private one. It was held by the magistrate of the twenty-four Parganas, and the proceedings were conducted by a leading criminal counsel. In accordance with Section 4 of the Act, the accused were not present at the inquiry except for purposes of identification, and had no opportunity, at that stage, of cross-examining the witnesses. If the trial in the High Court had been proceeded with, full opportunity for cross-examination would have been afforded them there. The evidence of the informers was submitted to the Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Bengal, and was carefully considered before the prosecution was sanctioned. The High Court. have not suggested that the in- formers should be prosecuted for perjury, and it is not proposed to take any proceedings against them.