High CourtsDivision Bench

Emperor vs Rash Behari Ghose and Another

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 2 November 1920 · Citation: 62 Ind. Cas. 590

HON’BLE JUDGES
John Woodroffe, J · Buckland, J

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 145 words
1.

This has come before us on a Reference by the District Magistrate, recommending that the sentences upon the amused should be enhanced. If an accused pleads guilty, it is open to the Magistrate in his discretion to take further evidence, and it is also open to the Crown to suggest that this may be done, In this particular case, having regard to the fast that the prosecution did not ask for the examination of further witnesses than those who were examined before the framing of the charge, that the name of the Head constable referred to in the reference was not on the list of witnesses and having regard to the record of the evidence of the witnesses who were in fast examined, we do not feel disposed in the circumstances of this case to accept the recommendation and, therefore, the sentences will stand.