RAJU, J. : This Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1961 is filed by five persons, who were original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 25 in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1961 tried by the Sessions Judge, PanchMahals. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the five appellants and hence this appeal. The appeal is before us for admission.

2. Under Section 410, Criminal Procedure Code, any person convicted on a trial by a Sessions Judge, or an Additional Sessions Judge; may appeal to the High Court. Section 419; Cri. Pro. Code provides that every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader. The cumulative effect of Sections 410 and 419, Cri. Pro. Code is that every appellant should file a separate appeal in the form of a petition. If four persons P, Q, R and S are convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge, Section 410, Cri. P.C. provides that every one of these persons namely P or Q or R or S may appeal to the High Court and Sec. 419 provides that every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader. On a reasonable interpretation of these two sections, every convicted person must file a separate appeal to the High Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 421 provides as under :

"On receiving the petition and copy under Sec. 419 or Section 420, the appellate Court shall peruse the same, and, if it considers that, there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily."

It is also clear from this section that every convicted person must file a separate appeal, because Sec. 421(1) provides that the Court may dismiss the appeal summarily if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering after perusing the appeal petition. Section 421 did not provide for the case of a petition showing sufficient grounds for interfering in the case of certain accused and not showing sufficient grounds for interfering in the case of another accused. Sec. 421 did not provide that an appeal could be dismissed summarily as regards one accused and proceeded with as against another accused person. That Sec. 421 does not contemplate an order of partial summary dismissal is the law declared by the Supreme Court in Ghela jadav v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 748. In is true that that Lordships of the Supreme Court were not dealing with the case of an appeal filed by several accused persons but were dealing with the case of an appeal filed by only one person. But their Lordships declared the law in general terms. After referring to the provisions in Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code and in particular Sec. 421 and Sec. 422 Cri. Pro. Code, their Lordships observed as follows :-

"These provisions do not contemplate a partial summary dismissal of an appeal as was pointed out by the Privy Council in Emperor v. Dahu Raut, AIR 1935 PC 89."

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred with approval to the following observations of the Privy Council :-

"The terms of the section equally exclude the possibility of partial summary dismissal, e.g., in so far as the conviction is appealed against."

This decision, therefore, amounts to a declaration of law that the terms of Section 421 Cr. P. C. exclude the possibility of a partial summary dismissal of any type and that one of the instances of such a partial dismissal is in so far as it relates to the conviction appealed against. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore, decided three things : (1) that the provisions in Sec. 421, Cri. P. C. do not contemplate a partial summary dismissal of an appeal; (2) an instance of such partial summary dismissal is one where the summary dismissal relates to the conviction of an accused person and not to his sentence; and (3) therefore an order admitting the appeal in regard to the sentence and dismissing it in regard to the conviction is invalid.

3. Sec. 431, Cri. Pro. Code also indicates that Chapter XXXI of Cri P. C. contemplates only separat