K.S.TIWANA, J.

1. While hearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 5095-M of 1984 (Harbans Singh etc. V/s. State), M.M. Punchhi, J. formed the view that a Division Bench decision of this court reported as Karnail Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1983 Cri LJ 713 went against the Supreme Court judgement reported as Gopalakrishna Menon V/s. D. Raja Reddy, AIR 1983 SC 1053 : (1983 Cri LJ 1599). In the view of M.M. Punchhi, J., as the principle of Gopalakrishna Menon s case (supra) seems to have escaped the notice of the learned Judges in Karnail Singh s case (1983 Cri LJ 713) (Punj and Har) (supra), the latter judgement might be rendered per incuriam. On this basis, this matter in which the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the new Code) is involved is referred to a larger Bench. Criminal Revision No. 517 of 1985, Baldev Singh etc. V/s. State of Punjab was also directed to be heard with Criminal Misc. No. 5095-M of 1984.

2. The question of judgement in case of Karnail Singh s case (supra) being per incuriam does not arise. Per incuriam means through want of care . It means an order of Court obviously made through s