AMMANAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to the Bench is :

(2.) THE facts, giving rise to the said question and the reason for reference are: the Court of 25th Addl. Sessions Judge, bangalore City, by its order dated 25-6-2001, has convicted 5 accused in S. C. No. 40/1991 and sentenced them to undergo r. I. for 3 years for the offence under section 498-A r/w 149 of IPC and sentenced the accused No. 2 to undergo imprisonment for life whereas, sentenced accused Nos, 1 and 3 to 5 to undergo R. I. for a period of 5 years for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. Challenging their conviction, accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 have filed Cr. A. No. 829/2001 whereas, accused no. 2 has filed Crl. A. No. 975/2001 before this Court. These appeals are pending for consideration. Under Section 377 of Cr. P. C. , the State had also filed Crl. A. No. 1181/2001 against the inadequacy of the sentence as against accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 sinqe they were sentenced to undergo R. I. for 5 years only as against the minimum punishment of imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. When said state appeal was taken for consideration, filing of and pendency of two criminal appeals filed by the accused challenging their conviction was brought to the notice of the division Bench. Still, without considering the case of the accused regarding their acquittal, the Division Bench allowed the State appeal (Crl. A. No. 1181/2001) after hearing the State and the accused and ordered as under :

(3.) WE have heard both sides. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that under inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. , this Court can recall the order passed by the Division bench in Crl. A. No. 1181/2001 and thereafter hear and decide that (State) appeal along with the two appeals filed by the accused. In this connection, he placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of Rajasthan High court in the case of Habu v. State of rajasthan (AIR 1987 Rajasthan 83 ). So also, according to him, in spite of disposal of the appeal filed by the State (Cri. A. No. 1181/ 2001), this Court has still power to hear and dispose of the appeals filed by the accused persons and relied on a decision of Madhya pradesh High Court in the case of M. S. T. Budwara Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991 Cri LJ 3054) in support of his argument. On the other hand, the learned Addl. SPP, though not able to support the procedure adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in the State appeal (Cri. A. No. 1181/2001), submitted that in spite of the order of the division Bench in disposing the State appeal, this Court can still decide the present appeals in view of provisions contained in ss. 384 (4) and 393 of Cr. P. C. and invited our attention to the said provisions with some other provisions relating to appeals against conviction. Perused the records carefully.