PUTTA RANGANAYAKULU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Agreed on all top'.cs except the interpretation of Rule 218 of the Criminal Rules of Practice read with Rule 4 of the Appellate Side Rules. Rule 4 of the Appellate Side Rules has to be read subject to Rule 218 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. Considerations of convenience cannot influence the construction of an enactment. Rule 4 of the Appellate Side Rules does not clothe a Single Judge with power to dismiss an appeal included in sub-rule (1) of Rule 218 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The order rejecting in limine, an appeal of an accused person by a Single Judge during the Vacation was not vahdly passed and could be disregarded. That would not, therefore, operate as a bar to his being joined in the appeal filed by other persons against their convictions.

(2.) On behalf of all the accused including the 1st accused in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1955 on the file of the Higa G mrt S.R. No. 15142 of 1955 (Criminal Appeal) sought to be preferred to the High Court against the order of the Court of Session of Guntur Division dated 7th April, 1955 and made in S.G. No. 4 of 1955.

(3.) The question involved in this matter relates to practice, and is of some importance. So we think that it is desirable that there should be an authoritative ruling. For this purpose the papers may be placed before our Lord the Chief Justice for referring it to a Full Bsnch.