(1.) The decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in S. Ganapathy vs. N. Senthilvel ((2016) 4 CTC 119) was doubted by the learned single Judge while dealing with Criminal Revision Case Nos.494 and 536 of 2019 and Crl.A.SR.Nos.25084 and 25112 of 2019. The doubt raised is to the maintainability of the appeal by the complainant against an order of acquittal confirmed before the Court of Sessions invoking the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The incidental issue is on the question of leave to be obtained. As a corollary, the learned single Judge, framed some more issues as well. This reference has been sought for on the seminal question as to whether the remedy lies as against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate on a complaint whether it is under proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under Section 378(4) of Criminal Procedure Code. The issues framed are profitably quoted hereunder.
(2.) The Honourable Chief Justice, after going through the issues framed and the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge and after taking note of the law laid down qua the framing of the issues in exercise of the powers vested under Order I Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the High Court of Madras, Appellate Side, 1965, referred the matter by constituting a Full Bench consisting of three of us to answer the questions raised. The Honourable Chief Justice accordingly opined that it is legally permissible for a single Judge, who doubts a decision of the Larger Bench to seek for a Reference. This Reference has been made consciously after taking note of the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court governing the field wherein one of the judgments which took into consideration the earlier judgment of the Apex Court, which weighed heavily in the minds of the Full Bench.
(3.) Having gone through the questions referred and keeping in mind Order 1 Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Rules of High court of Madras Appellate Side Rules, 1965, we believe that we can go into all the issues referred to us including the incidental questions apart from the legality of the decision rendered in S. Ganapathy vs. N.Senthilvel ((2016) 4 CTC 119) and the consequences arising out of the same. With the said understanding, let us proceed further.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN