( 1 ) THIS is an application trade on behalf of Faulad and Kalloo on the 6th of October, 1960 stating that Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1960 has been compromised between the parties and there-lore permission to compound the offence be granted.

( 2 ) THE facts, which have given rise to this application may be shortly stated. The applicants faulad and Kalloo were convicted by the iearnp. d Addl. Sessions Judge of Allahabad on the 30th of January, 1960 under Sections 308 and 397,. P. C. , and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment which it is not necessary to mention for the purpose of this application. Both the applicants appealed to this Court against their conviction which was heard by me on the 23rd september, 1960. I, after hearing the appeal, dictated judgment in open Court on that very date. As a result, I allowed the appeal of Kalloo and set him at liberty while I converted conviction of faulad into one under Section 325,. P. C. and under that section sentenced him to three years rule I, This judgment was not placed before me for signatures by the time this application was presented. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that a judgment pronounced in Court does not dispose of an appeal until it is signed and, sealed, under the rules of this Court. Therefore an application for permission to compromise is still competent. In view of the filing of this application I have refrained myself from signing the judgment but since I/am not satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel and I feel that this is a matter which needs a more authoritative pronouncement, I wish to refer the question of law for decision to a larger Bench. The rulings placed for consideration before me also indicate some confusion of thought and also conflict of decisions.

( 3 ) THE relevant rule of this Court is contained in Ch. VII, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court framed in 1952, Sub-rule (1) whereof provides, "when the transcript of the judgment or order prepared by the judgment clerk has been filed with the paper-book of the case, the Bench Reader shall submit it to the Judge or Judges who delivered it. It shall then be signed or initiated by such Judge or judges after such corrections as may be considered necessary. Thereafter it shall be sealed with the seal of the Court by the Bench Reader". Sub-rule (2) of this Rule goes on to provide that in case of death, illness, retirement or any other cause on account of which the Judge or Judges by whom the judgment was delivered, is not available, the transcript be submitted to the Chief justice and it may be sealed under his orders.

( 4 ) FROM this Rule it will be seen that it does not affect the disposal of the appeal at all. The appeal is disposed of bv the pronouncement of the judgment in Court under Sub-rule 1. of Rule 1 which provides, "after a case has been heard, judgment may be pronounced either at once or on some future date which shall be notified in the Cause List. No other notice to the parties shall be necessary". Then Rule 2 provides for the recording of the judgment if if has beer delivered orally in Court and thereafter Rule 4, as quoted above, provides for the necessary correction by the same Judge, sealing of the judgment and placing of it on the record. To my mind this Rule gives no authority whatsoever to a Judge to change his judgment after it has been pronounced in open Court. The procedure of placing the judgment before the same judge is merely for the purpose of making such corrections as may be necessary. These corrections obviously are corrections of language grammar or of clerical nature. There is nothing in this Rule to indicate that the whole judgment may be altered after it has been pronounced in open Court without proper procedure of review being followed,

( 5 ) THE Rules which had been framed in this Court in January, 1898 as they stood in the year 1937, also materially provided for the same procedure. Rule 6 of Ch. VII in the old Rules