RAJESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1, Rajeshwar Prasad, has been convicted of the offences under Sections- 147, 323, 325, 426 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, under Section 147 of the Code, his conviction under Section 323 of the Code having been set aside by the lower appellate court. The remaining three petitioners have been convicted of the offences under Sections 147, 323, 426 and 452 of the Code and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 147 of the Code. No separation sentence has been imposed under the other counts on any of the four petitioners.

(2.) Being aggrieved by their convictions, the petitioners have preferred Criminal Revision No. 2425 of 1968. When this revision application was place-ed for final hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, a rule of enhancement was issued, as no sentence was awarded to the petitioner under Sections 325 and 452 of the Code. That rule of enhancement gave rise to Criminal Revision No. 2097 of 1969.

(3.) Both these cases were placed for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. Challenging the rule of enhancement before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that no illegality was committed in not awarding any sentence under Sections 325 and 452 of the Code, for which the petitioners were convicted, and, at any rate, this amounted only to an irregularity, not calling for. any interference by issue of a rule of enhancement. Learned counsel referred to a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Rai v. Ram Belash Tewari, (AIR 1933 Pat 179 (1)), in support of his submission. Their Lordships also noticed another Bench decision of this Court in the case of Alakh Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 1965 (2) Cri LJ 832 (1) (Pat), according to which imposition of sentence of imprisonment under Section 452 was 'compulsory', and pointed out that the provision of Section 325, in relation to sentence, was in similar terms as that of Section 452 of the Code. Their Lordships were of the view that there was conflict between the above two Bench decisions of the Court and, therefore, referred the matter to a larger Bench. Thereafter these cases have been placed before us.