Emperor Vs. G.V. Vaishampayan

indian evidence act (1 of 1872), section 10-conspiracy-'intention'-statements 'in reference to their common intention '-statements with reference to future, re-levant-statements referring to past events, not relevant.;narratives coming from the conspirators as to their past acts cannot be said to have a reference to their common intention within the meaning of section 10 of the indian evidence act, 1872.;the word 'intention' in the expression 'common intention' in section 10 implies that the act intended is in the future, and the section makes relevant statements made by a conspirator with reference to the future. the words ' in reference to their common intention' mean in reference to what at the time of the statement was intended in the future.;emperor v. abani bhushan chuckerbutty (1916) i.l.r. 38 cal. 169, s.b. and sital singh v. emperor (1918) i.l.r. 46 cal. 700, followed.;in a prosecution on a charge of conspiring to commit certain illegal acts, among which was the act of attempting to murder or cause hurt to police officers, one of the conspirators, who was an absconding accused, had made a statement to another conspirator, who turned an approver, as to the shooting they had at a police officer and his wife and as to what was to be done in future in furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy. it was proposed to start a propaganda in furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy by publishing a pamphlet. at the trial the approver was asked to depose to the conversation he had with the absconding accused:-;that, under section 10 of the indian evidence act, 1872, the narrative as to the shooting incident was not admissible in evidence as it had do reference to their common intention, but it wag permissible to prove what the conspirators intended to do in the future by publishing the pamphlet, and that if the pamphlet was to contain an account of the attack, the prosecution was entitled to prove what that version was. - .....not come within section 10 of the indian evidence act, inasmuch as they were not made in reference to the common intention of the con-spitators. for the crown mr. velinker argues that any statement made by any one of the conspirators is a relevant fact so long as it is made after the time when the intention of the conspirators was first entertained by any one of them.2. reading section 10 it appears to me that narratives coming from the conspirators as to their past acts cannot be said to have a reference to their common intention. the word 'intention' implies that the act intended is in the future and the section makes relevant statements made by a conspirator with reference to the future. 1 interpret the words 'in reference to their common intention' to mean in reference to what at the time of statement was intended in the future. this appears to me the ratio decidendi of the calcutta cases, emperor v. abani bhushan chuckerbutty ilr (1910) cal. 169. and sital singh v. emperor ilr (1918) cal. 700, though the full argument is not contained in the judgments of their lordships. on principle this interpretation seems to be correct. the principle on which section 10 is based is that of agency-see the extract from the judgment of mr. justice crump at p. 519 in emperor v. shafi ahmed (1925) 31 bom. l.r. 515:-when concert has once been proved, each party is the agent of all the others, and acts done by him in pursuance of the common design are admissible against his fellow conspirators. 3. it can scarcely be said, however, that one conspirator has any implied authority to make a confession after his arrest as in the case of emperor v. abani bhushan chuckerbutty, or even as in this case to give a description of past events to his co-conspirator.4. but this ruling does not suffice for a decision as to all the portions of the record of the committing magistrate to which the learned counsel for the defence object. it is not the case for the crown that the object of the.....