We may say at once that we do not expect very much from punitive measures.[1] The conviction of offenders will never check such a movement as that which grew up in Bengal unless all the leaders can be convicted at the outset. Further, the real difficulties have been the scarcity of evidence due to various causes and the want of reliance whether justified or not, on such evidence as there has been. The last difficulty is fundamental and cannot be remedied. No law can direct a court to be convinced when it is not. Punitive Measures (Permanent). Legislation directed better to secure the punishment of seditious crime may take the shape either-- (_a_) of changes in the general law of evidence or procedure which if sound would be advisable in regard to all crime, or (_b_) changes in the substantive law of sedition or modifications in the rules of evidence and procedure in such cases designed to deal with the special features of that class of offence. The recommendation under (_a_) does not amount to much and we will not mention it. Under (_b_) they recommend: In the first place we think that a permanent enactment on the lines of Rule 25A under the Defence of India Act is required. That rule provides for the punishment of persons having prohibited documents (which may have to be defined anew) in their possession or control with (as we read the effect of the words used) intent to publish or circulate them.... We also recommend that the principle of section 565 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which provides for an order requiring notification of residence after release in the case of persons convicted a second time for certain offences) should be extended to all persons convicted of offences under Chapter VI of the Penal Code (offences against the State) whether previously convicted or not. Such persons might be ordered to give security for a period not exceeding two years for good behaviour so far as offences under Chapter VI are concerned, and in default be directed to notify their residence to Government, who should have power to restrict their movements for the period of two years after their release and prohibit them from addressing public meetings,--the term "public meetings" including in its scope political subjects as in section 4 of the Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act of 1907. Lastly, we think that in all cases where there is a question of seditious intent, evidence of previous conviction for seditious crime or association (of an incriminating kind, of course) with persons so convicted should be admissible upon written notice to the accused with such particulars and at such a time before the evidence is given as might be fair. What we have called seditious crime would of course have to be accurately defined.