§ 13. Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of Mr. P. V. Balakrishna Aiyer, joint magistrate of Rajahmundry, in a case of charges against Dr. Subramanyam and Mr. N. C. Bhimaraju, in which the magistrate in acquitting the accused stated that it was apparent that barring prosecution witness 2, who was not an occurrence witness, all the other prosecution witnesses had given false evidence; and whether, as the chief witness for the prosecution was the deputy superintendent of police, that officer is still in the police service, on what grounds his services have been retained, and what disciplinary action has been taken in his case and in that of the other official witnesses for the prosecution?
§ Sir S. HOAREAn inquiry was ordered by the Madras Government immediately the judgment came to their notice. I have not yet been informed of the result.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the police superintendent who conducted the prosecution in this case is still in the service of the judicial authorities?
§ Sir S. HOAREI had better make no statement on the case until I have the report of the inquiry.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSWhen making inquiries, will the right hon. Gentleman also ascertain the cause of one of the prisoners having more than one rib broken during the process of being arrested?
§ Sir S. HOAREI feel sure that all relevant points will be taken into account 1454 by the inquiry. Our desire is that the inquiry should be as comprehensive as possible.