C. P. Code) to put Up the accused on both the charges at' the same trial ; and to avoid a technical difficulty of law, he proposed to put the accused up on two charges- under Section 124 A and one charge under Section. 153 A, staying for a time proceedings under 153 A with respect to the article of 12th May. This procedure was prejudicial to Mr. Tilak's interests but in spite of his protests, the joinder of charges was allowed. The result of this was, as the detailed reports of the proceedings clearly show% that practically "one single article of June 9th was made the ground of three convictions and sentences on three different charges."
The * objectionable ' passages on which the prosecu- tion relied were not specified. Mr. Tilak drew the attention of the learned Judge to this difficulty. He was however told that the whole lot of the words was objected to and with His Lordship's permission, the charges were amended by putting in the whole articles- into the charge. This was, of course very convenient to the Prosecution, but it increased Mr. Tilak's burden and compelled him to explain each and every sentence while conducting his defence.
The only prosecution witness seriously cross-examined by Mr. Tilak, who conducted his own defence, was- the late Mr. B. V. Joshi, First Assistant to the Oriental Translator, Bombay. The cross-examination is a model. of skill and resourcefulness. It reveals Mr. Tilak's command over the Marathi as also his proficiency in all. the arts of an Advocate. Mr. Tilak completely succeeded in proving that the transaltions were perverted* Words likely to be unfavourable to him were grossly though unintentionally mistranslated ; while expres-
