Couch, C.J:— The preliminary objections taken in the case of Amir Khan in so far as they apply to the case of these prisoners may be considered as already disposed of, and the judgment in Amir Khan's case on those objection applies equally to their cases.

I proceed to consider, first, the case of Tobaruk Ali, who has been convicted of waging war against the Queen at Umbeyla in 1863.

(His Lordship, after reading the evidence of Nur Shah Ali and of Sanata, proceeded):— It is difficult to see in what other way evidence of this character, as to persons engaged in the fight, could be obtained, except by the Government instituting enquiries as to what persons were capable of speaking to these facts, and sending them down to give evidence. And when such persons were sent down, it is difficult to see in what other way they could be dealt with than that they should be kept by Government, and subsistence afforded them by Government. Of course, witnesses, so obtained and supported by Government, may be in some degree disposed to give evidence in favor of the party who sent for them; but it does not follow from this that their evidence is to be rejected, and it is the duty of the Court to consider to what extent it deserves credit.

(His Lordship then read the evidence of Jan Mahomed, Narayan Sing, and Mahomed Shah, and proceeded):— According to these witnesses, therefore, Tobaruk Ali was actually engaged in the waging of war. Four of them speak to their having seen him so engaged; and another speaks to a statement which Tobaruk Ali made to him, which shows also that he was so engaged. Upon this evidence, it appears to me that Tobaruk Ali was properly convicted, and that the conviction against him also ought to be affirmed.

The next prisoner whose case is to be considered is Mobaruk Ali. Now the principal evidence against him is that of Umed Ali, who is an accomplice. I do not think I need read that, because if he is sufficiently corroborated, his evidence would establish the guilt of the prisoner Mobaruk Ali. The question to be considered is whether there is in his case sufficient corroboration upon which we may safely act and sustain the conviction.

(After reading the evidence of Umed Ali, Purna Chandra Banerjee, and of Harrak Lal, his Lordship proceeded):— It appears to me that this evidence is of a most unsatisfactory character, and that it cannot be regarded as evidence corroborative of Umed Ali upon which we can safely rely, so as to sustain the conviction of Mobaruk Ali. Umed Ali was a witness of that character that it would not be safe to rely upon his uncorroborated evidence; and the evidence which is put forward in corroboration is most unsatisfactory, and I cannot come to the conclusion that it would be right to sustain this conviction. The evidence leaves such a serious doubt in my mind as to whether the conviction should be supported that I think the con viction and sentence with regard to Mobaruk Ali must be reversed.

(His Lordship then proceeded to consider the case of Haji Din Mahomed, who was convicted by the Sessions Judge of abetting the waging of war, and after commenting on the evidence of the witness Bandhu Khan, and observing that his evidence as to Pir Mahomed had been disbelieved by the Judge, proceeded):— This evidence, as I have said, seems to me to amount to very little; and the witness is scarcely in the situation of a witness upon whose evidence any great reliance can be placed. He has been a very considerable time in the hands of the police, and under such circumstances it may be supposed that he would be disposed to give evidence which he thought might be in favor of the prosecution. The evidence is too slight materially to affect this prisoner; and the case against him appears to me to fail. I think the assessors were right in the conclusion they came to when they thought that he ought to be acquitted. The conviction of Haji Din Mahomed cannot be sustained, and must be reversed.

(His Lordship then proceeded to dispose of the case against Aminuddin):— The principal witness against this prisoner was Timed Ali, who was said to be corroborated by Jaya Narayan and Mahomed Shah. (His Lordship, after reading Jaya Narayan's evidence, proceeded):— As regards Jaya Narayan what he states in his evidence about Aminuddin having brought out the gold mohurs, has been disbelieved by the Judge, and Aminuddin has been acquitted of that charge. I cannot see that Jaya Narayan can be relied upon as a witness in support of the witness Umed Ali against Aminuddin. The other witness, in corroboration of Umed Ali, is Mahomed Shah, who speaks about Aminuddin having made a statement to him of the objects of the conspiracy. But that is not the kind of evidence one would expect or require for the purpose of corroborating a witness like Umed Ali; it is not such evidence as we can safely rely upon. When the evidence comes to be examined, and looking to the circumstances of the Judge having actually acquitted Aminuddin of the matter as to which Jaya Narayan speaks, we cannot, I think, rely upon the evidence of this witness sufficiently to sustain the conviction of Aminuddin. I think his conviction must be reversed. This disposes of all these appeals. The result will be that the convictions and sentences with regard to Amir Khan and Tobaruk Ali will be affirmed; and the convictions and sentences in the cases of Mobaruk Ali, Haji Din Mahomed, and Aminnddin will be reversed, and the said prisoners Mobarnk Ali, Haji Din Mahomed, and Aminuddin will be released.