§ 8. Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the chief justice in Lahore, delivered on 18th November, 1927, in setting aside the convictions of Mian Taj Mahmud for perjury, in which the chief justice remarked that the proceedings taken by the magistrate showed that he had not heard the case with that judicial detachment which should characterise the trial of a criminal case, and that he had allowed his executive zeal to outrun his judicial discretion; whether the Government have taken any action in the matter with regard to the magistrate in question; and whether they propose to take any steps to secure that executive and magisterial duties shall not be confused in the future?
§ Earl WINTERTONI have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to. I have not been informed what action was taken by the Government in regard to the magistrate but am inquiring. As regards the last part of the question, I am afraid that I can add nothing to the answer I gave on 12th March to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon).