The Reminiscences of Zafrulla Khan — Page 24
24 REMINISCENCES OF SIR MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLA KHAN Question : Mr. Ambassador, before we launch back into the many conferences which preceded the Government of India Act, 1935, I wonder if you might say a few words about the Delhi Conspiracy case from March 1931 to June 1932. Khan : I was Senior Crown Counsel in the Delhi Conspiracy case. In those days another very important conspiracy case was in progress, which was known as the Meerut Conspiracy case. There was some connection between the two cases, but they were not so interconnected that they could be tried together. In the Delhi conspiracy case, about a dozen or so young men were charged with having conspired together to manufacture large quantities of explosives for the purpose of blowing up cantonments and government establishments and institutions, for the purpose of creating terror in the country with the objective of pushing forward the independence movement. Thus, a group of terrorists were being tried for various specific offenses, in addition to the main conspiracy in the course of which those offenses were committed. For instance, one of them had, one bright afternoon, attempted to murder a police officer in the Chandi Chowk of Delhi who had spotted him as a wanted offender and was chasing him. This young man had turned around and discharged his pistol into the poor police official's bowels, but the man had miraculously escaped death. Other offenses, like dacoities and robberies, for the purpose of procuring funds for their activities, had been committed by members of the group. The case came up for trial in Delhi before a tribunal, set up under the Ordinance. The tribunal was comprised of three judges: one European, Mr. White, who was a Sessions Judge from the United Provinces, and two Indians: one of them, Mr. Amir Ali, a retired Sessions Judge; and the other, Mr. Kanwar Sen, who at the time had been the Principal of the University Law College in Lahore, where I had served with him as part-time lecturer. Later, he had become Chief Justice in Jammu and Kashmir and had retired from that position. The principal evidence in the case, which tied up the various scattered portions of it together, was that of the principal approver. There were two or three approvers, i. e. , King's witnesses in the case. I was very much struck by the principal approver. That young man had a terrific memory; not only did he remain unshaken under cross- examination in respect of the main incidents of the story that he told at the trial, but even when I had questioned him before the trial, testing out