BINDESHWARI MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one appears either for the petitioner informant, nor for opposite party nos.2 to 20 though vakalatnama has been filed on their behalf. We have considered this matter with the assistance of counsel for the State, Sri Ashwani Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P.

(2.) INSTANT revision petition has come up before the Division Bench in the light of the order no.4 dated 13.8.2012 passed by the Single Judge of the Court with reference to Chapter II 1(xv) of the Patna High Court Rules as according to the Single Judge the revision application assailing the order of acquittal for the offence under Section 302 and other allied Section of the Penal Code is required to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court for the reason that the offence is punishable with death or with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for more than ten years.

(3.) THE informant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench as he was of the view that the punishment which may be imposed on opposite party nos.2 to 20 in view of High Court Rules is within the competence of Division Bench of the Court.