KULDIP DAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three persons, Raghunandan Singh, Raghubar Koiri and Kuldip Das, were tried at the Sessions with a jury on charges under Secs.147 and 395, Penal Code, and were convicted and sentenced. Two of them, Raghunandan Koiri and Kuldip Das, have appealed. Raghubar Koiri has not appealed. The appeals came up before two separate Benches of this Court which considered that the sentences which are one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 395, to run concurrently, and a fine of Rs. 800 in each case, required examination. The order which was passed in the appeal of Kuldip Das was: This appeal is dismissed except as to the question of sentence on which only it will be heard.

(2.) The order in the case of Raghunandan Singh was: This appeal will be heard with the appeal of Kuldip Das on the question of sentence only. Quoad ultra it is dismissed. The learned advocate who have appeared in support of the appeals have urged that though the appeals have been admitted on one point only, they are under the Code and the decisions entitled to be heard upon the whole appeal. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Gaya Singh V/s. Emperor AIR 1925 Pat 453 which followed Nafar Sheikh V/s. Emperor and which has been followed in this Court by a member of this Bench in Rijhu V/s. Emperor AIR 1931 Pat 351. As regards the decision of a single Judge, it is enough to say that it was not open to the learned Judge to ignore the decision of a Division Bench even if contrary to his own views.

(3.) Now though, in my opinion, the decision in Gaya Singh V/s. Emperor AIR 1925 Pat 453 may require examination when a proper occasion arises, in the present instance it is clearly distinguishable. There the order of the Bench which heard the appeal was: "This appeal will be heard on the question of sentence only." A definite order of dismissal on other points raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be said to have been passed. In the present instance however it is clear that the Benches which admitted the appeals on the question of sentence, have not only determined all other considerations which could be advanced in favour of the appellants [as the trial was by jury, the appeal is under Section 418(1) limited to a matter of law only] and have determined them adversely to the appellants and dismissed the appeal in respect of them.