( 1 ) THIS is a reference to the full bench by the Division Bench of this Court involving a question of some legal importance as to the true interpretation of S. 294 of Cr. P. C. As the Division Bench of this Court in Crl. A. No. 338/99 (Boraiah alias Shekar v. State) was not in agreement with and did not propose to accede to the proposition of law laid down earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anjinappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2000 Kant 3501 and having been pursuaded to accept the view taken by the full bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shaikh Farid Hussinsab v. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 1983 Cri LJ 487 and being of the view that where the Post Mortem report is marked by consent and where its genuineness is not disputed, it is clearly admissible in evidence notwithstanding the fact that the author of the Post-mortem report is not called into the Court to give evidence, and moreso or especially where the defence has not chosen to cross-examine the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, has referred this question for decision or for resolution of the said legal issue b