Pradhani Jani vs. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 451; Kusha Duruka vs. State of Odisha, (2024) 1 SCR 604—Relied.

Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.05.2017 and 09.05.2017 respectively, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2013 (G.R. No. 3536 of 2012), arising out of Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 248 of 2012, whereby four accused persons were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and RI for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each for the offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC, five appeals were filed before this Court; three being appeals preferred by four of the acccused/convicts and the other two being Government Appeal seeking enhancement of sentence under Section 307 of the IPC and an appeal by the victim for adequate compensation under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The prayer for suspension of sentence of the convicts were rejected by different Benches. Those appeals were listed before the Single Judge as the maximum sentence was of ten years.

3. Since the Government Appeal under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. and the appeal by the victim under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. were listed before the Division Benches, some of the SJ appeals were directed to be listed before the Division Bench where the Government Appeal and the appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. were listed.

4. It was in this context that a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2020 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 792 of 2017 observed that the very referral of the Cr. Appeals (SJ) to Division Bench was neither warranted nor in accordance with the rules of Patna High Court.

5. The following questions were formulated by the aforenoted Division Bench for a decision by a larger Bench;

(i) Whether a Division Bench can entertain an appeal preferred by a convict in which a substantive sentence passed is for ten years?

(ii) Whether the Rules prescribed for creation of jurisdiction in the Division Bench in the matters to be exclusively heard and disposed of by a Single Judge?

(iii) Whether the coram for adjudication of an appeal against conviction prescribed under the Rules can be changed by an order passed by the Court?

6. Though the issues raised may not be of any seminal importance, nonetheless they need to be answered.

7. So far as criminal appeals are concerned, Rule 2 of Chapter II of the Patna High Court Rules provides that:

(a) an appeal or reference in a case in which a sentence of death has been passed;

(b) an appeal, revision or reference in which a substantive sentence of more than ten years imprisonment has been passed;

(c) an appeal under Section 378 from an order of acquittal relating to an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for more than ten years and passed by a Court competent to pass such sentence;

(d) an appeal under Section 377 or a case in which notice has been issued under Section 401 to an accused to show cause while the sentence should not be enhanced, shall be listed before the Division Bench of the High Court.

8. Rule 1 of Chapter II of the Patna High Court Rules provides that an appeal, application or reference under the Code of Criminal Procedure other than mentioned in Rule 2 (referred to above) shall be heard and disposed off by a Single Judge.

9. Thus, all appeals carrying sentence of more than ten years are to be placed before the Division Bench and sentence up to ten years are to be heard and disposed off by a Single Judge.

10. In these set of appeals, one of the members of the referring Division Bench had heard the appeal of one Md. Danish sitting singly on the issue of suspension of sentence and had rejected that prayer with an observation that the appellant/applicant could renew his prayer for bail if his appeal is not taken up