A preliminary question that has arisen in this matter for our decision is as to whether a further reference to a larger Bench is competent after the third Judge in a reference under section 392 CrPC (New) expressed its view not agreeing with either of the views expressed by the two Judges of the Division Bench in a criminal appeal.

The course of proceeding. The learned trial Court convicted the appellant under section 302 IP C and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of two years. On appeal by the appellant against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the Division Bench of this Court heard the same. The learned Judges of the Division Bench differed in their opinion. One view was for acquittal of the accused on setting aside the impugned judgment. The other view was in favour of dismissal of the appeal upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. Now to resolve this difference of opinion among the Judges constitution of the Division Bench, the matter was referred to the third Judge in accordance with the provision of section 392 C