( 1 ) INITIALLY Special Criminal Application No. 309 of 1999 was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, before this Court on 5. 4. 1999 by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 4. 1. 1996, (Annexure a to the petition) passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad under sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" for brevity) be set aside on the strength of the latest pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme court and the proceedings against the present petitioner be ordered to be dropped. When the said Special Criminal Application came up before the Court on 9. 4. 1999. The Court granted leave to amend converting the Special Criminal Application into Criminal Misc. Application under sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code as it appears from the faint writing at the top of the order thereof dated 9. 4. 1999. Notice was also issued on 9. 4. 1999 and on the very same date appearance was also entered on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2, who waived service. After hearing both the sides interim order was also passed in terms of para 11 (B) of the petition to the effect that pending final disposal of this petition further proceedings in Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994 before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad shall remain stayed.

( 2 ) THE interim order was continued on different dates and thereafter this converted Criminal Misc. Application No. 2284 of 1999 came up before the Court on 28/06/1999. After hearing both the sides, rule was issued and the learned Single Judge while issuing rule on 28/06/1999 passed the order in some detail referring the matter to the Division Bench. The contents of paras 7 and 8 of the order dated 28/06/1999 are reproduced hereunder :"7. THUS, under these circumstances, some important questions arise for consideration in this petition, e. g. Whether the petitioner who has been directed by the Single Judge Bench of this Court to be joined as the accused in the light of the law prevailing at that point of time, "i. e. prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in the case of RANJITSINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1998 (4) CRIMES 5" supra, can be disturbed by another Single Judge Bench of this Court while entertaining this petition? Whether the petitioner can challenge his being impleaded as an accused by this petition by challenging the subsequent impugned order, when he has not challenged the order impleading him as an accused? Whether the question as to impleading the petitioner as an accused can be said to be a still pending at this point of time when it is already decided earlier by this Court on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of KISHUNSINGH vs. STATE OF BIHAR, 1993 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI.) 470 only because the trial is not over? and Whether that order can be upset at this stage in the light of decision rendered in case of RANJITSINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB which is a subsequent decision?""8. UNDER these circumstances, as the aforesaid important question arise in this petition and therefore, in view of this Court, this is a case which requires to be decided by the Division Bench and therefore, this matter is referred to a Division Bench in exercise of powers under Rule 5 (1) of Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993. The Registry is therefore, directed to place this matter before Honourable Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders for placing the matter before a Division Bench. "

( 3 ) THIS is how this Criminal Misc. Application has come up before this Court as the learned Single Judge has opined that it is the case which requires to be decided by a Division Bench and therefore, the matter has been referred to the Division Bench.

( 4 ) SHRI J. M. Panchal and Shri Kiran Jani, learned advocates have submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present petitioner has been assisting the Customs Department, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and various other agencies by furnishing valuable informations from time to time