https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294323 A separately tried co-accused was held to be a competent prosecution witness because, for examination purposes, the term "accused" referred only to the person then on trial, and no improper inducement was shown to exclude the evidence. The Magistrate's power to order a separate trial was treated as discretionary and the order was upheld. However, omnibus charges lacking particulars of time, place, circumstances, and individual role were impermissible, and separate sentences for acts allegedly done in furtherance of conspiracy could not stand unless those acts were specifically charged and particularised. The conspiracy convictions against accused Nos. 1 to 4 were maintained, while accused No. 5 was acquitted on that count. en-us Fri, 29 Jul 1938 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:50:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294323 A separately tried co-accused was held to be a competent prosecution witness because, for examination purposes, the term "accused" referred only to the person then on trial, and no improper inducement was shown to exclude the evidence. The Magistrate's power to order a separate trial was treated as discretionary and the order was upheld. However, omnibus charges lacking particulars of time, place, circumstances, and individual role were impermissible, and separate sentences for acts allegedly done in furtherance of conspiracy could not stand unless those acts were specifically charged and particularised. The conspiracy convictions against accused Nos. 1 to 4 were maintained, while accused No. 5 was acquitted on that count. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Jul 1938 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294323