RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The correctness of the Division Bench decision reported in Kumaresan v. Ameerappa (1991 (1) Ker LT 893) which settled to conflict between two earlier decisions of two learned single Judges of this Court was doubted by another Division Bench in this Crl. Miscellaneous Case and it is thus the case is before us. In the reference order the Division Bench has pointed out that in the light of the decisions in M/s. Syed Rasool and Sons v. M/s. Aildas and Co. (1992 Cri LJ 4048) (Andh Pra) Rakesh Porwal v. Narayan Joglekar (1993 Cri LJ 680) (Bom), Voltas Ltd. v. Hiralal Agarwalla (1991 Cri LJ 609) (Cal) and Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar (1994 (1) Ker LT 33 (SN) (Case No. 32)), the decision of the Division Bench in Kumeresan's case (1991 (1) Ker LT 893) requires reconsideration. The conflict settled by Kumaresan's decision was between the judgments in Mahadevan Sunil Kumar v. Bhadran (1991 (1) Ker LT 651) and the judgment in Crl RP No. 480 of 1990. In Kumaresan's case the Division Bench has approved the view taken in Crl.R.P. No. 480 of 1990 and has disapproved the view taken in Mahadevan's case (1991 (1) Ker LT 651).

2. Before dealing with the point arising for c