1872 in respect of which there is to be administration is absurd. IN THE GOODS The right to receive the rent is incidental to the property in OF RAM CHANDRA DAS. the house. We think the right way to assess the duty is to take the value of the house, and upon that the ad valorem fee ought to be paid. Government Solicitor: Mr. Chauntrell. Attorneys for the administratix: Messrs. Beeby and Rutter. [APPELLATE CRIMINAL.] 1871 Dec. 21. Before Sir Richard Couch, Kt., Chief Justice, Mr. Justice L. S. Jackson, and Mr. Justice Macpherson. QUEEN v. AMIR KHAN AND OTHERS (APPELLANTS).* Jurisdiction-Act XI of 1857-Act XVII of 1862, s. 4-Waging War against Where the prisoner was charged with having, at Calcutta, abetted the waging of war against the Queen, and was tried at the Sessions Court of Patna, it was held that the Court of Sessions at Patna had jurisdiction to try him, because he was a member of a conspiracy, other members of which had done acts within the district of Patna in pursuance of the original concerted plan, and with reference to the common object. The Court of Patna had jurisdiction also, because the prisoner had sent money from Calcutta to Patna by hundis, and, until that money reached its destination, the sending continued on the part of the prisoner. The Governor-General, in issuing a warrant of commitment under Regulation III of 1818, does not in any way act judicially or as a Court of Justice, nor is he to be considered as having adjudicated that the person, placed under personal restraint, had been guilty of some specific offence. The proceeding is not in the nature of a conviction of the person placed under restraint, therefore the person so placed under restraint cannot, in any future proceeding taken against him, plead that he has been already tried, convicted, and punished. Letters, &c., found in a man's house after his arrest, are admissible in evidence, if their previous existence has been proved. * Criminal Appeal, No. 522 of 1871, from the order of the Sessions Judge of Patna, dated the 26th July 1871. 1871 QUEEN v. Pir Mahomed, Amir Khan, Hashmadad Khan, Mobaruk Ali, Tobaruk Ali, Haji Din Mahomed, and Aminuddin, were, on the 27th March 1871, committed by the Officiating Magistrate of AMIR Khan. Patna to take their trial at a special sessions to be held on the 1st May 1871. The Officiating Magistrate drew up thirteen different charges against the prisoners with different heads or counts: The first was against Pir Mahomed: that he, in or about the years 1862, 1863, 1864 and 1865, and also in or about the years 1866, 1867, 1868, and 1869, at Dinapore, abetted the waging of war and attempted to wage war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Indian Penal Code. The second was against Amir Khan, Hashmadad Khan, and Mobaruk Ali that they, in or about the year 1867, at Patna, abetted the waging of war and attempted to wage war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code. The third was against Pir Mahomed and Mobaruk Ali: that they, in or about the year 1867, at Dinapore, abetted the waging of war and attempted to wage war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code. The fourth against Amir Khan alone, under fourteen different heads, charged that he, in or after the month of May 1861, in or about the year 1862, in or about the year 1863, in or about the year 1864, in or about the year 1866, in or about the year 1869, at Calcutta, abetted the waging of war and attempted to wage war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code. The fifth was against Hashmadad Khan: that he, in or after the month of May 1861, in Calcutta, and in or about the years 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1867, at Patna, abetted the waging of war and attempted to wage war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code. The sixth was against Mobaruk Ali: that he in or about the years 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, and 1868, at Patna, and in or about the years 1864, 1866, and 1869, at Delhi, abetted the waging of war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code. The seventh was against Tobaruk Ali: that he, in or about the years 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867 and 1868, at Delhi, abetted the waging of 1871 QUEEN ย. AMIR KHAN. war against the Queen, and thereby committed offence punishable under 8. 121 of the Penal Code. The eighth was against Tobaruk Ali and Aminuddin: that they, in or about the years 1866 and 1867, at Delhi, abetted the waging of war, and attempted to wage war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code. The ninth was against Aminuddin : that he, in or about the years 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867 and 1868, at Delhi, abetted the waging of war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code. The tenth was against Haji Din Mahomed that he in or about the years 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867 and 1868, at Rawul Pindee, abetted the waging of war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code. The eleventh and twelfth were against Haji Din Mahomed and Pir Mahomed that they, in or about the year 1866, at Dinapore, abetted the waging of war, and attempted to wage war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code. The thirteenth was against Tobaruk Ali: that he, in or about the year 1863, at Umballa, waged war, abetted the waging of war, and attempted to wage war against the Queen, and thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code; and that he at Mulka prepared to wage war, with the intention of either waging war or being prepared to wage war against the Queen, and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 122 of the Penal Code. The charge against Amir Khan was amended by the Sessions Judge at the trial. In the first two counts he was charged with having, during or about the month of September 1861, at Calcutta, abetted the waging of war, or attempted to wage war against the Queen, and thereby having committed an offence punishable under s. 1 of Act XI of 1857 (1), and within the cognizance of the Court of Session. In ten succeeding counts he was charged with having, during or about the month of May 1862, during or about the month of September or October 1863, during the months of January, February, March, or April 1864, on or about the 13th June 1866, and during or about the month of July 1869, at Calcutta, abetted the waging of war, or attempted to wage war against the Queen, (1) See Act XVII of 1862, s. 1. and having thereby committed offences punishable under s. 121 of the Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court of Session. Amir Khan had been arrested in Calcutta, on the 10th July 1869, under a warrant of the Governor-General in Council, issued under the provisions of Regulation III of 1818. He was kept in confinement at various places till the 20th of January 1871, when he was released, and again arrested under a warrant of the Officiating Magistrate of Patna, dated the 4th January 1871. Under that warrant he was removed to Patna, and there put upon his trial with the other prisoners, who had likewise been imprisoned under the provisions of Regulation III of 1818. The prosecution attempted to make out the charge of conspiracy against Amir Khan by proving (among others) the following facts, by the evidence of accomplices:-That the North-West frontier of India has been in a state of warfare since the year 1827, when Syad Ahmed, at the head of a body of fanatics, fought with the Sikhs; that fighting has been going on down to the present day under various leaders, and has for many years past been directed against the British Government, between whose troops and the fanatics there have been several fights; that these fanatics receive support by voluntary contributions of money, and recruits come to them from several places in Bengal; that the money from Bengal is sent, by hundis or in cash, in the first instance to Patna, whence it is forwarded to the frontier; that at Patna the movements of the conspiracy were directed by Fyaz Ali, Yahiya Ali, and Harhat Hossein, who were said to be the chief agents of the malcontents; that Amir Khan was a disciple of the leading fanatic, and at one time entertained jehadis at his house in Patna; that Amir Khan was in the habit of living at his house in Patna with his family, except when he came to Calcutta on account of his business; that he attended a musjid at Patna, where jehad was regularly preached; that he directed his trading agent, Amir Khan of Pubna, to collect zekat, and that his agent did collect sums of money, and that he sent these moneys to Yahiya Ali, the head of the conspiracy at Patna, 1871 QUEEN v. AMIR KHAN. 1871 QUEEN v. and Ahmadulla, of Saduttpore, who acknowledged the receipt of them; that one Kazi Mian Jan, an inhabitant of Comarcolly, AMIR KHAN. Zilla Pubna, was concerned in the conspiracy, and that he was one of the agents for the collection and transmission of money for jehad purposes; that one Daimulla, a disciple of Kazi Mian Jan, paid Mian Jan zekat and fitra every year, and on one occasion took Rs. 200 (Rs. 125, his own money, and Rs. 75 given to him by Kazi Mian Jan) by Mian Jan's order, and made it over to Amir Khan of Pubna; that Kazi Mian Jan's house was searched by Nabakrishna Ghose of the Bengal Police sometime in February 1864, and among a vast mass of correspondence found there, were three letters which purported to have come from Amir Khan, the prisoner, to Kazi Mian Jan, and, accordingly, Nabakrishna proceeded to Calcutta with Kazi Mian Jan and his brother Kazi Murad; that he there met Major Parsons, District Superintendent of Police of Umballa, and these two, with others, proceeded to Amir Khan's place of business, and from what passed there, Amir Khan was arrested; that these letters were explained to Amir Khan, and he was asked if he wrote them, and was called upon to show the entries in his books of the transactions mentioned in them; that Amir Khan pointed to one of his munshis, Mosahib Ali, as having written the letters, and being able to show the accounts; that Mosahib Ali admitted having written the letters, and said he wrote them by his master's orders, and pointed out the entries; that a sum of Rs. 200 was received by Yahia Ali and Fyaz Ali, through Asad Ali, the son-in-law of Amir Khan, the receipt of which was announced to Kazi Mian Jan as purporting to be on account of the balance of the price of books, the same term as was used in the letter N1A from Amir Khan to Mian Jan. It was contended by the prosecution that this term signified money for the support of jehad, and that other fictitious names were used in the account books of Amir Khan. These letters were marked L1, M1A, and N1A, and were as follows: (Translation of Exhibit L1.) MY DEAR SHEIKH SAHIB,-After compliments and wishes for a happy interview, which is the sole object of my heart, be it known to you that, thanks to God, I am all right up to the present time |