JUDGMENT

Mookerjee, J. - This is an application for review of a criminal case on the certificate of the Advocate-General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner Barendra Kumar Ghose was tried on the 16th and 17th August at the fourth Criminal Sessions of this year by Mr. Justice Page and a Special Jury, on a charge of offences punishable under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the first count and guilty to the second count. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder, with the result that the accused was convicted and sentenced to death u/s 302. On the 22nd August an application was made on his behalf to the Advocate-General for a certificate under clause 26 of the Letters Patent. On the 27th August, the Advocate-General heard Counsel for the prisoner in support of the application. On the 29th August, the Advocate-General granted a certificate in the following terms:

Certificate of the Advocate-General of Bengal under clause 26 of the Letters Patent of 1865.

2. I. Whereas the accused abovenamed was on the 16th August 1923, charged at the Criminal Sessions holden in this Hon'ble Court in its Criminal Jurisdiction before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Page and a Special Jury on an indictment as follows:

First - That he, the said Barendra Kumar Ghose together with certain of the other persons on or about the 3rd day of August in the year of our Lord 1923 in Calcutta aforesaid committed murder by causing the death of one Amirta Lal Roy and thereby he, the said Barendra Kumar Ghose, committed an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Second - That the said Barendra Kumar Ghose together with certain other persons at or about the time and in the place aforesaid were jointly concerned in attempting to commit robbery on the said Amrita Lal. Roy, and that at the time of committing such robbery Voluntarily caused hurt to the said Amrita Lal Roy and thereby he, the said Barendra Kumar Ghore, committed an offence punishable u/s 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

II. Whereas it has been represented to me that the accused pleaded "guilty" to the aforesaid charge u/s 394, Indian Penal Code, with the reservation that he did not cause hurt to the Post Master and pleaded "not guilty" to the charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, and the trial was proceeded with thereafter in respect of the latter charge.

III Whereas it has been represented to me that the case for the prosecution as opened by the learned Standing Counsel and as disclosed in the evidence of the prosecution was as follows:

That the accused and three other persons made their appearance at the Sankaritolla Post Office at about 3-30 P.M., on the 3rd of August 1923 armed with firearms, that three of them including the accused entered the Post Office through its south-eastern door while the fourth man remained outside, that of the three who Came inside, the accused stood in the middle and the masked man on his left and the other man on his right, that they stood within less than two yards of the Post Master of whom all the three demanded money with the words "Post Master Rupey deo," that the Post Master asked "laser taka," whereupon all the three levelled their weapons and fired at the Post Master's right palm and another struck him on the right side under the right arm-pit whereupon he fell down with a cry, that a clerk named Sham Dulal Das who was working in the same room at that time ran to the Post Master's aid whilst Hari Prasad Das, the Post Office Packer, ran after the three men who were immediately escaping along with the fourth man who was outside, that the chase was taken up by two other men named Sita Ram and Khapasram, employees of one Promotho Lal Sircar, residing at 15, Mohendra Sircar's Lane opposite the Post Office, that as they got to the turning of Mohendra Sircar's Lane and Sankaritolla East Lane, the accused ran down the latter lane firing his pistol from time to time whilst the other three ran by Mohendra Sirca