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 · 69 wordsMitter, J.—We concur with the Officiating Sessions Judge in holding that the second recognizance was illegal. The first recognizance was general and unlimited in its terms according to the form given in the law, and it is therefore clear that, to take a second recognizance before the period fixed in the first recognizance had elapsed, would be a virtual interference with the provisions of s. 290, Criminal Procedure Code.