ASHIQ MIYAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has come up before us on a reference by a Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) THE petitioners in this ease have been convicted by the Additional City magistrate. Indore, under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act, 1878, and under Section 120-B. I. P. C. , and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on each count. Their joint appeal against the convictions and sentences were dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge. Indore Thereupon, they filed this equivalent Citation: revision petition against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge When this petition first came up for hearing before one of us (Golvalker J. ). it was contended on behalf of the petitioners, on the authority of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sardar Khan v. State A. I. R. 1963 Madh Pra 337 that the investigation of the offence in the present case did not fall within the purview of Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code and the report of the police officer, on the basis of which the case was instituted against the petitioners, was not a police report as contemplated by Section 251-A of the Code, and that therefore the trial of the petitioners held in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 251-A of the Code was vitiated. It was urged that the petitioners should have been tried according to the procedure laid down in Section 252 of the Code. In reply, it was submitted before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the State that the decision of this Court in Sardar Khan's Case A. I. R. 1963 Madh. Pra 337 (supra) was no longer good law in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pravin Chandra v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1185 and Amalshah v. State of Madh pra, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1963, dated 11-12-1964 (SC ). A reference was also made to a decision of Sen J. in State v. Ganpatsingh, Cr. Revn. No. 275 of 1964 D/-8-3-1965 (Madh Pra) (Indore Bench) where the learned Judge held that the law laid down in Sardar Khan's case A. I. R. 1963 Madh. Pra. 337, was no longer good law, 'especially in a case which is initiated on a report of a Police officer'.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge was inclined to think that the law laid down in Sardar khan's case A. I. R. 1963 Madh. Pra. 337 (supra) was still good, whether the case was one initiated on the report of an excise officer or a police officer. He, however, fell that as the decision of Sen J. in Ganpatsingh's case Cri. Revn No. 275 of 1964, d/- 8-3-1965 (Madh. Pra.) (Indore-Bench) (supra) and the decision in Sardar khan's case A. I. R. 1963 Madh Pra 337 (supra) were conflicting this revision petition should be heard by a larger Bench rather than by him sitting singh Hence this reference.