Law:

Section:

ACT: Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s. 498-Difference between two Judges of High Court on nature of offence committed by accused-Reference to third Judge-Third Judge considering evidence and finding accused not guilty- Acquittal whether valid. HEADNOTE: The Sessions Judge convicting the respondents under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court found that the accused caused the injuries but the Judges composing the Division Bench differed on the nature of the offence committed by the accused. The third Judge to whom the case was referred under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, found no motive for the accused to commit the offence and held that the evidence of the chief prosecution witness was of a doubtful nature and that it was not safe to find the accused guilty relying on that evidence. He acquitted both the accused. In appeal to this Court by the State, it was contended that as the difference between the two Judges of the Division Bench was confined to the nature of the offence only, the third Judge to whom the case was referred in a reference under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had no power to acquit the accused by upsetting the concurrent finding of two Judges. Dismissing the appeal, ^ HELD: 1. The third Judge to whom the case was referred under section 429 did not over-step the limits of his jurisdiction and it cannot be said that the view taken by him was unreasonable or perverse. [586 D-E] 2. In Bhagat Ram's Case, [1972] 3 SCR 303 the scope of section 429 was not considered, nor any question was raised whether the Judges of the Division Bench could restrict the powers of the third Judge under section 429, nor was the notice of the Court drawn to the three earlier decisions of this Court. [584 D] 3. What Section 429 contemplates is that it is for the third Judge to decide on what points he shall hear arguments, if any, and that postulates that he is completely free in resolving the difference as he thinks fit. [584 E] Babu and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1965] 2 SCR 771 applied. 4. The language of…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492