S. B. Sinha, J.

Both these Criminal Revision applications having arisen from a common judgment arising of same incident, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both these Criminal Revision applications arise out of the judgment dated 14th July, 1988 passed by Shri Pradhan Uma Kant, Sessions Judge of Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in Cr. Appeal No. 117-C/141 of 1988 (Shambhu Prasad Sah Vs. The State of Bihar) and Cr. Appeal No. 119-C/143 of J988 (Sudhist Paswan & anr. Vs. The State of Bihar) preferred against the judgment dated 13-5-88 passed by Shri B. K. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur, in G. R. Case No. 1662A/1987 (T. R. No. 864/88) convicting the petitioners along with one Ram Eqbal Paswan @ Pahalwan and one Krishna Gope to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment each separately for offences under sections 363 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The cases have been heard by a Division Bench under the following circumstances.

4. Shambhu Prasad Sah, the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 255 of 1988, filed the said application being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforementioned judgment of the appellate Court.

5. By an order dated 16-12-88 a learned Single Judge, white admitting the said application on the question of sentence only directed issuance of a notice to the petitioner that in the event the said application is dismissed why the sentences imposed upon him by the trial court shall not be enhanced.

6. Similarly, in the Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 1989 (R) filed by Sudhist Paswan, another learned Single Judge by an order dated 16-2-1989 while admitting said application on the question of sentence only directed issuance of notice to show cause to the petitioner to the effect that in the event the said application is dismissed why the sentences imposed upon him by the trial court should not be enhanced.

7. When these two Cr. Revision applications were placed for hearing before a learned Single Judge, he by an order dated 25-3-1989 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 255 of 1988 (R) and order dated 27-3-1989, passed in Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 1989 (R) directed both these applications to be placed before a Division Bench, in view of the fact that notices of enhancement of sentence had been issued in these cases.

8. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that in terms of Chapter 2. Rule 1 (XV) of the Patna High Court Rules all matters other than mentioned in the clause therein may be heard and disposed of by a Single Judge; one of the exceptions being a case in which notice has issued under Section 439 to accused to show cause why sentence should not be enhanced.

9. In the aforementioned circumstances, these applications have been placed for hearing before us.

10. Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, drew our attention to Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that the Nigh Court in terms thereof may exercise any of the powers which the court of Appeal inter alia under Section 386 of the Cr. P. C. may exercise.

11. In terms of section 386 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure an appellate court may in an appeal for enhancement of sentence :

(1) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retried by a court competent to try the offences, or

(2) alter the finding maintaining the sentences, or

(3) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and the extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same.

It is thus, clear that where a rule of enhancement of sentence bas been issued by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the Court may necessarily have to examine the case on merits which may entitle the accused to obtain an order of acquittal.

12. Thus, in our view, the limited rule issued by this Court with regard to the question of sentence only looses all its importance in view of the issuance of notice to the accused persons directi