Practice and Procedure – Conflicting Decisions – Two conflicting orders by co-ordinate benches arising out of same set of facts and one trial – Subsequent order to be treated as order referring the matter to larger Bench of two judges for consideration
Held: Single Judge of High Court upheld order passed by the Special Judge framing charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 – Order attained finality – Subsequently, another Single Judge of High Court disagreed and directed charge under s.302 not to be framed – Same set of facts and one trial leading to two conflicting orders – Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, considered – If Single Judge is of the opinion that the earlier order was unsustainable and contrary to law should have referred to a Division Bench/ two judges Bench – Should not have passed conflicting order – Subsequent decision of the Single Judge to be treated as one differing with the view expressed in the earlier order and as one referring the matter to a larger bench of two Judges/ Division Bench for consideration – Chief Justice of High Court requested to constitute appropriate Bench. [Paras 5, 8-10]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.