SORNAVELAYUTHAM PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court, the appeal has been placed before a Full Bench on the orders of the learned Chief Justice.

(2.) AT the outset, the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the Public Prosecutor expressed a doubt as to the legality of the posting of the appeal before the Full Bench. Mr. Vanamamalai, the learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that under the amended Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proviso to the section enables one of the Judges constituting the Bench to require the appeal to be re-heard and decided by a larger Bench of Judges. This proviso is applicable to cases that are heard under the new Code. The present appeal was pending at the time when the new Code came into force and therefore, according to Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which was in force immediately before the commencement of the new Code. This would imply that Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is applicable. In Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, there is no proviso, which would enable one of the Judges to require the re-hearing of the appeal before a larger Bench of Judges, Further, the learned Counsel also referred us to the wording of the opinion of the Judge, who desired the posting of the matter before a Full Bench that he agreed with the referring order of Venkataraman, J. , wherein he has directed the matter to be placed before the third Judge under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants does not clearly indicate the desire of K. N. Mudaliyar, J. , to have the matter placed before a Full Bench. It is unnecessary for us to go into the question raised for the learned Chief Justice, after consideration of the entire matter has directed the appeal to be heard by a Full Bench. The validity of the order of the learned Chief Justice cannot be questioned for under Rule 6 of the Appellate Side Rules, High Court, Madras, notwithstanding anything contained in the rules the Chief Justice may direct that any application, petition, suit appeal or reference shall be heard by a Full Bench as denned in these rules. The order of the learned Chief Justice puts an end to the doubts that are expressed at the bar. There could be no valid objection to the Full Bench dealing with the appeal. JUDGMENT Kailasam, J.

(3.) THREE accused the father and his two sons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli for the offence of causing the death of one Arumugham Pillai on the 29th of July, 1972, at about 3 P. M. , at Pottaloorani village and found guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 323, Indian Penal Code (against A-1) Section 302 read with Sections 34, and 324, Indian Penal Code, (against A-2) and Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, {against A-3) and sentenced to imprisonment for life. There were four charges framed against the accused. The first against the first accused was for an offence under Section 302 the second against A-2 and A-3 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, the third was against A-1 for an offence under Section 323 and the fourth was against A-2 for an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for causing simple hurt with dangerous weapon.