C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) ONE Mr. Eashwar M. Sajanani filed a private complaint against M/s. OPTS Marketing Pvt. Ltd. , and its Managing Director and the Chief Executive, alleging that on 3-7-1997 the Managing Director and the Chief Executives of M/s. OPTS Marketing Private Limited, had approached him for a hand loan of Rs. 30,000. 00 for their urgent needs, representing that they had means to repay the amount, and dishonestly and deceptively induced him to part with Rs. 30,000. 00 against two post dated cheques for Rs. 15,000. 00 each, drawn on State Bank of India, Lalaguda Branch, Secunderabad, and when those cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured. Inspite of notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheques, they have not repaid the amount and hence are liable for punishment under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC. On 5-1-1999 the learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to Ramgopalpet Police Station, under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. , and directed the police to submit a report by 5-2-1999, on the basis of which a case in Cr. No. 24 of 1999 was registered by the Ramgopalpet Police. On 3-2-1999 the three named accused in that Crime filed Crl. P. No. 556 or 1999, under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , for quashing the proceedings in Cr. No. 24 of 1999 of Ramgopalpet Police Station, placing reliance on some judgments of this Court including that of a Division Bench in D. Prakash v. State of A. P. Cri P. No. 6180 of 1995 dated 15-10-1996. When the case came up for admission before one of us (Bilal Nazki, J.) he doubted the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench in D. Prakash s case (supra ). He, observing that as per the practice that has grown up in this Court of a single Judge, while not finding himself in agreement with law laid down by a Division Bench, referring the matters to a Full Bench, felt that the correctness of such procedure also deserves to be decided by a Full Bench along with the correctness of the above mentioned decision of the Division Bench, and formulated two questions for reference to the Full Bench, and directed the matter to be placed before My Lord the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. As per the directions of My Lord the Chief Justice, the following two points formulated by my learned brother Bilal Nazki, J. are referred to this Full Bench :1. Whether a single Judge can differ with the law laid down by a Division Bench and refer it to Full Bench or is he bound to follow the Division Bench ?

( 2 ) WHETHER the law laid down by the Division Bench in Crl. P. No. 6180 of 1995 is good law ?2. Point No. 1 : For a decision on this point Rules 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the Rules of The High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in its Appellate Jurisdiction ( appellate Side Rules for brevity) would be of useful assistance. As per Rule 5 of the Appellate Side Rules, a "full Bench" shall be a"bench of any number not less than three of the Judges for the time being present as judges of the Court". Rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules, which relates to the matters to be heard and determined by a single Judge, provides for the single Judge, before whom the matter is posted for hearing, adjourning the case for hearing and determination by a Bench of two Judges. Rule 2 of the Appellate Side Rules, which relates to matters which are to be heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges, provides for the case, posted before it for hearing, being referred to a Full Bench if both Judges hearing the case agree that its determination involves a question of law, and thereby they may refer either the question of law or the matter itself being decided by a Full Bench. Notwithstanding the said provisions contained in Rules 1 and 2 of the Appellate Side Rules, Rule 6 of the Appellate Side Rules, empower the Chief Justice absolutely to direct a case being posted before a Full Bench for hearing. So the Appellate Side Rules contemplate a single judge, before whom a matter is posted f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document