be
granted so
and to afford an
Oppor
tunity of lifting the new facts mus
clicited
the result would be on
unsatisfactory,
Most Cates
the Proceedings would not unfre- -failure. -quently terminate in a
2.
Justice.
are of opinion also that if the Power of interrogating the
Prisoner
can
once
the exercised
with his consent (See Sec. II) it will prove valueless for all practical purposes.
I agree
with the Acting Chief -
Justice that the Ordinance should
contain a
Clause
to meet
the
point raised by him as to the
"effect of
the answer of Several Prisoners
Homphay 7931.
The Undersecretary of State.
India Office
11 August
MINUTE. //
Mr. Round 12
Mr. Meade. /3/ Mr. Holland,
14
Mr. Herbert
of
Mr. Huyssen.
Lord Kimberley.
as against the other indicted The case of Reg. v. Payne to which the refers has been followed by recent decision (Reg. v. Thompson 12 Cox C.C. 202) in which it was held that even the wife of one Prisoner could not give evidence for or against other Prisoners indicted jointly with her husband.
are of opinion therefore that
it would not be desirable to
pass the proposed Ordinance in its present shape.
21
I have the honor to be
Your obedient Servant
Julian Pauncefote Cole
Acting Chief Justice
Indexed
449
14 August 187
I am directed by the Earl of Kimberley
to acquaint
Anand 31 August 1872-8793.
the Duke of Argyll that
his Lordship has under
Consideration an
Ordinance
which has been lately passed by the Legislative Council to provide for
with respect
to the oral examination of prisoners and that he would
be glad to be favoured with His Grace's opinion as to the procedure and mode
of interrogation, which has been Found most suitable where this practice has been introduced.
I am to request to be furnished with a copy of the new code of Criminal Procedure, which