( 1 ) ALTHOUGH I am in entire agreement with the opinion expressed by my learned brother Asthana, yet I should like to say a few words of my own since the question that was raised in this case related to the jurisdiction of a Bench of this Court and as such was a matter of importance. It is not necessary for me to go into the facts in any detail since my learned brothers judgment has incorporated in it all the relevant facts necessary for the determination of the question that arose for determination. Suffice it to say that on the 24th March, 1958, a Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice James and Mr. Justice Takru directed a notice to issue to the opposite party before us, Devi Dayal, to show cause, within three weeks, why the sentences which had been passed on him by the Magistrate by his Order dated the 29th October, 1957, be not enhanced. This notice was directed to issue by the aforementioned bench ostensibly in the exercise of, as they said, "the High Courts power of Revision".

( 2 ) ON the 6th of August, 1957, James and Takru, JJ. while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 1957, namely, an appeal filed by Krishna Chandra alias Bhola and others against the State, held that the opposite party Devi Dayal had been, prima facie, guilty of perjury and forgery. They therefore directed a notice to issue to Devi Dayal to show cause why he should not be prosecuted and if found guilty, convicted for the commission of those offences. Devi Dayal showed cause and he, in effect, admitted his guilt and threw himself at the mercy of the Court. The Court was of the opinion that there was no question in the case of the accused throwing himself at the mercy of the Court and thereby escaping the consequences of a legal prosecution. The Bench, therefore, directed the Registrar to file a complaint against Devi Dayal for having committed offences punishable under Sections 193 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, The complaint was duly filed by the Registrar of the Court and it came up for hearing before Mr. S. N. Sharma, Judicial Officer of Khajuha and he by his order dated the 29th of October, 1957, found the opposite party Devi Dayal guilty of offences punishable both under Section 193 and section 465,. P. C. The learned Magistrate, however, awarded very lenient sentences: he awarded a sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- and simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court under Section 193,. P. C. , in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, and he sentenced Devi Dayal to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for his conviction under Section 465,. P. C. , in default to three months rigorous imprisonment.

( 3 ) IT appears from the judgment, by which the Bench, consisting of James and Takru JJ. , issued notice to Devi Dayal to show cause why the sentences which had been awarded to him by the learned Magistrate be not enhanced, that the order of the learned Magistrate was brought to the notice of the Bench by the office of the Court. From an examination of the relevant papers forming part of the record of this case it appears that an endorsement was made on the file by a clerk in the office of this Court in the following words: "reference your Lordships order dated 26-9-1957, flagged A, copy of the Judicial Magistrates order, flagged B, submitted for favour of perusal. " this office note was, as the note itself indicates, meant for Honble B. R. James J. and Honble J. N. Takru J. The office note quoted above appears to have been perused by Honble B. R. James. , alone for there is on the office note itself an endorsement by James J. , in the following words: "seen. Office to inquire from Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, if any appeal has been filed before him and ask him to send to this Court his judgment as soon as it is delivered. " this note by James J. , is under date 20-2-1958. The office sent a letter of enquiry to the learned sessions Judge of Fatehpur who by his letter dated the 10/11th March, 1958, informed this Court that no app