RAM BEYAS SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been placed before a Full Bench at, the admission stage to decide the question of maintainability of the appeal before this Court. There are five appellants, who have challenged the legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the First Assistant Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, by his judgment, dated the 27th January, 1976. Appellant No, 1 has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The remaining appellants have been convicted under Section 307, read with Section 149, of the Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each. Appellant No. 1 has been further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under that count. Appellants 1 and 3 to 5 have been further convicted under Section 148 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months each. Appellant No. 2 has been convicted also under Section 147 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The Stamp Reporter raised in objection in respect of the maintainability of the appeal before this Court. Under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'New Code'), an appeal lies to this Court against a judgment of conviction, if the trial is held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge, or against an order of conviction passed by any other court "in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed". As the sentence passed against appellant No. 1 is only for seven years, the appeal should have been filed before the Court of Session under Section 374(3) of the New Code.

(3.) This appeal was first listed for admission before a learned single Judge of this Court, along with the aforesaid stamp report, who, by his order, dated the 9th March, 1976, referred the matter to a Division Bench for decision on the question of the maintainability of the appeal before this Court, in view of the fact that there were conflicting views on this point. The appeal was then placed before a Bench of this Court, which, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, passed an order saying that the important questions involved in the appeal were of far-reaching effect, and, as such, it was a fit case which should be placed before a Full Bench.