( 1 ) THE Revision petitioner was charged before the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, for an offence of murder under Section 302. Indian Penal Code, and robbery under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted of both those charges. While thus acquitting the accused, the Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced her to two years rigorous imprisonment. The accused filed a fail appeal against this conviction and sentence, which came up for hearing before our brother Sanjeeva Row Navudu, J. , who set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam, for retrial on the charges already framed by the said Court at the trial of the petitioner, viz. , under Sections. 302 and 392, Indian Penal Code, with the following observations :"after having carefully thought over the merits of the case, the evidence for the prosecution as well as the statements of the appellant, I am satisfied that gross miscarriage of justice has resulted in this case and the only way to rectify this is to order the retrial of the case on the original charges under Section 302. Indian Penal Code and Section 92. Indian Penal Code, framed by the Sessions Judge, so that the accused may be property tried thereon and, if found guilty, convicted for the offence or offences proved by the evidence to have been committed by the accused". In the compliance with this direction of the High Court, the Additional Sessions Judge, with a view to try the accused charged her under Sections 302 and 392, Indian Penal Code, on 3-11-1958. On the same day, the accused filed a petition stating that she was acquitted on the aforesaid charges by the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, that her appeal was against her conviction under Section 411 and not against the acquittal on the charges under Sections 302 and 392, Indian Penal Code, and consequently the High Count dealt with the appeal under Sec-lion 423 (l) (b) and not under Section 423 (1) (a), Criminal Procedure Code, that in the circumstances, it was contended, the orders of the High Court directing retrial are not only without jurisdiction, bun also entitles her to raise the plea of Autrefois Acquit and that the retrial is barred by Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing this petition, remarked :"i must observe even at the outset that I am not entitled to embark upon a consideration of the merits and demerits of the respective contentions urged for the parties in view of the unequivocal directions given by the Court of Appeal, viz. , the High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 1957 on its file, for a retrial of the accused on the same charges on which she was tried originally. If the petitioner felt aggrieved with the directions given by the High Court, her remedy was to have moved the High Court itself and she cannot now be permitted to raise the objection in question before this Court". The petitioner, therefore, came up in revision to this Court. When the revision came up for hearing our brother Basi Reddy, J,, referred the case to Division Bench in view of the following two important questions of law arising in that case, viz. : " (1) Where an accused is tried by a Sessions Court on charges of murder and robbery, and the Sessions Court acquits the accused of those charges and convicts her only of an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and the accused appeals to the High Court against the conviction and sentence but the State Government does not appeal against the acquittal of the accused on charge of murder and robbery, is it open to the High Court to sot aside the conviction and sentence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code and order the accused to be retried on the charges of murder and robbery? (2) When in pursuance of the order of the High Court, the Sessions Court again frames charges under Sections 302 and 392, Indian Penal Code, against the accuse