§ 7. Mr. SORENSENasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the recent trial of Iqbal Singh and Sonranoth Lahiri, on 4th June, before the presidency magistrate of Bombay, the magistrate, after conviction of one of the accused, exercised his discretion under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code to refuse to order confiscation of certain money found in the house of the said accused, and ordered the money to be returned to the accused; that the Government of Bombay then served an order on the presidency magistrate restraining him from parting with the money, thereby preventing the carrying out of an order lawfully made; and whether he will cause steps to be taken to prevent such executive interference with the judicial authorities?
§ Mr. BUTLERThe money was declared forfeited by the Local Government under Section 17E of the Criminal Law Amendment Act on the ground that it was intended to be used for the purposes of an unlawful association, and my Noble Friend is not prepared to interfere in the matter.
§ Mr. SORENSENDoes not the hon. Gentleman consider that this conflict between two different legal authorities is likely to bring the whole question of law into disrepute?
§ Mr. BUTLERMy Noble Friend is satisfied that the local Government acted under the section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act under which they were entitled to act.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSDoes not this more or less cancel out the effectiveness of the Indian judiciary?
§ Mr. BUTLERNo, Sir. The local Government acted under the provisions of a certain Act, and the reasons they did so was to stop the money being used for purposes of an unlawful association.