LURDHU MARANDI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 586 of 2007, titled Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Singh versus State of Jharkhand, while dealing with an interlocutory application, moved under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. (Central Code) for the second time for suspension of substantive sentence, the earlier one having been rejected once, wherein the Division Bench directed listing of the second application before the same Bench, which earlier heard the bail application or before the Bench in which one of the Hon'ble Judge is a member, the other Bench being not available because of transfer, retirement etc., the present five interlocutory applications in the aforesaid five different appeals, were placed before the Division Bench, headed by one of us (Brother Patel, J.). The Division Bench, observing that there is no such direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once an application has been preferred for suspension of sentence and it is dismissed by one Division Bench, the same Division Bench should hear the subsequent application(s) preferred under Section 389 of the Code by the same accused, considered it to be a fit case for referring to the larger Bench. Hence this matter before Full Bench.

(2.) Order dated 13th of April, 2010 passed by the Division Bench in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 586 of 2007 is quoted hereinbelow: -

(3.) The Division Bench, making a reference, has not precisely put the controversy in the form of a question to be resolved by the Full Bench. However, the following two questions have arisen calling for the answer from this Bench: -