A single judge cannot refer one point of law for decision under the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, Part I, Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court unless the case involves a substantial question of law of general and public interest.

Laik, Ag. C.J. :- The above case has come up before us in the following circumstances :

2. The matter was heard by R. Bhattacharya, J. and when it was taken up for delivery of judgement, Mr. Dinesh Chandra Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, brought to his Lordship's notice that there is a decision of the Division Bench of this Court on the issues involved in the revisional application. That case is Criminal Revision Case No. 237 of 1971, filed by Brahmanand Dayal and another and disposed of on 20th February, 1974, (reported in 1974 Cri LJ 1079 (Cal), by the Division Bench constituted by N.C. Talukdar and A.N. Banerjee, JJ.

3. Thereafter the said judgement was considered by R. Bhattacharya, J. This will appear from R. Bhattacharya, J.'s order dated 27th August, 1974.

4. Thereafter R. Bhattacharya, J., delivered his judgement on September 10, 1974. It appears from the said judgement that two points were urged before his Lordship. Mr. Roy referred before R. Bhattacharya, J., the decision in the case of Mac. Culloch v. The State decided by Talukdar, J., in Criminal Revision Case No. 141 of 1973, disposed of on 19th March, 1973 (reported in 1974 Cri LJ I82). R. Bhattacharya, J., was of the opinion that the decision of Talukdar, J., was not applicable in the case before him. Considering other points covering about 11 pages, Bhattacharya, J., concluded that the said point urged on behalf of the petitioner was not acceptable to him.

5. Then he referred to the said judgement in the case of Brahmananda Dayal (1974 Cri LJ 1079) (Cal). After some discussion, Bhattacharya, J., stated :

"I could not agree with the view taken by Talukdar, J., in Mac. Culloch's case and naturally personally speaking I cannot share the same view expressed in Brahmananda's case based upon the decision in Mac. Culloch's case, (1974 Cri LJ 182) (Cal)."

We may state that Brahmananda's case is a case of a Division Bench. Thereafter Bhattacharya, J., stated as follows :

"The general principle is that the Single Bench is to follow the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of the Court, but in view of the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, Part I, Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court a case may be referred to a Division Bench for a proper decision on a question of law specially when a substantial question of law or an interpretation of statute is involved, more so when it is of general importance or public interest." Thereafter he stated :

"The question of law touching Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, in my view, is a substantial question of law of general and public interest which requires, in the facts and circumstances, to be decided by an appropriate Division Bench for proper decision. The second point canvassed before me by Mr. Ray will be decided by me after the decision of the first point by a larger Bench.

Let this matter be placed before the Chief Justice under second proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, Part I, Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court for appropriate and necessary orders for referring it to a Division Bench taking Criminal Cases for decision or such other order as would be fit and proper."

6. Thereafter this matter was assigned by the Acting Chief Justice to this Court.

7. It would appear from the above judgement that Bhattacharya, J., referred the matter only for the decision of the first point by a larger Bench clearly stating that the second point canvassed before him by Mr. Roy would be decided by him after the first point was decided. It would further be noticed that the matter was referred to under second proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, Part I, Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court.

The said proviso runs as follows :

"Provided further that such Judge may send back any particular case he thinks fit to the Bench taking Criminal cases to be disposed of by two Judges, and no Judge sitting singly shall have power to pass a substantive sentence other than one o