NAGEN DAS @ BALAI DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary question that has arisen in this matter for our decision is as to whether a further reference to a larger Bench is competent after the third Judge in a reference under Sec. 392 Cr. P.C. (new) expressed its view not agreeing with either of the views expressed by the two Judges of the Division Bench in a Criminal Appeal

(2.) After the third Judge expressed her aforesaid opinion, matter was laid before the Division Bench. The Division Bench by its order dated 16-7-1996 requested the Honourable the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to which this matter may be referred- for "Suitable orders in this behalf. Said order dated 16-7-1996 reads as under:

(3.) Now the question is whether this further reference to this larger Bench is competent and contemplated under Sec. 392 Cr. P.C. (new) after the third Judge expressed its final opinion irrespective of the fact as to whether such opinion of the third Judge agrees with either of the views expressed by the judges constituted the Divisional Bench To resolve this question of law, we requested Mr. N.M. Lahiri, learned Advocate General Meghalaya being assisted by Mr. N. Choudhury and Mr. N. Dutta, learned Advocates to extend their valuable assistance to this Court. They readily agreed to do so and accordingly' we have heard them apart from Mr. J. Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. The learned counsels rendered their valuable assistance to the Court.