KRIPA SHANKER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A stimulating question/situation falls for our consideration in view of the order of the Division Bench dated 27.2.2017. It would be advantageous to reproduce the said order to understand the backdrop against which the reference to this Bench has been made. The order dated 27.2.2017 has been passed on a bail application bearing No.66948 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.2218 of 2009, which reads thus:

(2.) The criminal appeal in which, the bail application was filed, arose from the judgment and order dated 31.8.2009 in S.T. No.531 of 1994, convicting the applicant under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and Sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was preferred by the applicant in 2009 itself and in 2012, the first bail application was filed and it was rejected by the Division Bench, vide order dated 24.4.2012. Thereafter, the second bail application was filed on 8.8.2012, bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.66948 of 2012. The application was heard in the open Court and the order granting bail, as stated by the learned senior Judge, was dictated immediately on conclusion of arguments. Thereafter, when the file/record was sent to the companion Judge on the Bench for his signature, he made an endorsement "I disagree with the view", that was expressed in open Court on 2.2.2017, and dictated his own opinion/order in Chamber on 2.2.2017, whereby he rejected the bail application. In this backdrop, the matter was once again placed before the Division Bench on 27.2.2017 when the order, as quoted above, was passed.

(3.) The question that has been formulated by learned senior member of the Division Bench for our consideration is "at which stage dissent to be indicated (by the companion Judge on the Bench), at the time of conclusion of dictation or during the course of discussion". In other words, "what should be the proper course of action, in a situation like this, for the companion Judge on the Bench when an order or a judgment is dictated in open Court, if he does not agree with the view expressed in the order/judgment".