A. SAMBASIVA RAO, C. J.

( 1 ) WHILE referring these matters to Bench or three Judges the Division Bench consisting of Obul Reddi, C. J. and Gangadhara Rao. J. posed the two following questions; (I) Whether it would be open to party to invoke the provisions of S. 482, Cr. P C. 1973, When he seeks to file a second revision in the High Court under S. 397 (3) ? (2) Whether sub-section (3) of S. 397 takes away the jurisdiction of this Court (High Court) to suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction in case where the Sessions Judge had already exercised his revisional jurisdiction under sub-sec. (3) on an application made to him under that sub-section?"

( 2 ) EARLIER Muktadar. J. referred these cases to a Division Bench in view of the conflicting decisions on these aspects f this Court and other High Courts. The Division Bench thought that the two question are very important and should be decided by a Full Bench.

( 3 ) APART from the different view points expressed on these questions by learned single Judges of this Court and of other High Courts, the Supreme Court itself in a Bench of two learned Judges held the view m Amarnath v. State of Haryana. AIR 1977 SC 2185 (at p. 2187): "sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document