Yashoda Nandan, J. :- This criminal reference has come up before us in the circumstances set out below :

On the 14th September, 1969. P. C. Gupta, Principal of a college at Khurja, forwarded a report against Amar Singh alleging commission by him of an offence under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The report was lodged by P. C. Gupta as a result of information furnished to him by M. L. Mittal, Accountant of the college. Consequent on the first information report, a case was registered against Amar Singh at Police Station Khurja, and he was taken into custody by the police. On the 19th September, 1969, Amar Singh was produced before the Judicial Officer, Khurja and on that date the Officer passed an order under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - hereinafter referred to as the Code - remanding him to custody upto the 2nd October, 1969. On the 20th September, 1969, Amar Singh applied for bail under Section 497 of the Code and was ordered to be released on bail. On the 30th January, 1970 Amar Singh filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Officer. Khurja, accusing P. C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal of offences under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint filed by Amar Singh was transferred to the Court of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Khurja, who, after recording the statement of Amar Singh and examining one Jagdish Prasad produced in support of the complaint and P. N. Tewari, the Sub-Inspector attached to police Station Khurja, framed charges against P. C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal under Sections 211 and 109/211 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. P. C. Gupta applied for stay of proceedings before the learned Magistrate but he refused to do so. Against the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate framing charges against them. P. C. Gupta filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. It was urged on behalf of the revisionist that Section 195(1)(b) acted as a bar to the learned Munsif Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 211 of the India Penal Code, except on the basis of a complaint filed by the Judicial Officer. Khurja, before whom proceedings for remand and bail had taken place, because those proceedings were in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed by P. C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal. Reliance in support of that contention was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Badri v. State, 1963 All LJ 334 = (1963 (2) Cri LJ 64). On behalf of the complainant Amar Singh, it was urged on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur, AIR 1967 SC 528 = (1967 Cri LJ 528) that the decision of this Court in 1963 All LJ 334 = (1963 (2) Cri LJ 64) (supra) has been by implication overruled. The learned Sessions Judge held that the authority of this Court in 1963 All LJ 334 = (1963 (2) Cri LJ 64) had not been shaken by the Supreme Court decision in AIR 1967 SC 528 = (1967 Cri LJ 528). He held that he was bound by the view taken in 1963 All LJ 334 = (1963 (2) Cri LJ 64) and consequently made a reference to this Court recommending that the charges farmed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Khurja be quashed and the proceedings before him be dropped.

2. When the reference came up before one of us (Hon'ble C. D. Parekh, J.) for hearing, it appears to have been urged that in view of certain observations made by the Supreme Court in R. R. Chari v. State of U.P. AIR 1951 SC 207 = (52 Cri LJ 775) : Narayan Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 1118 = (1959 Cri LJ 1368) : Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 986 = (1961 (2) Cri LJ 39) and S. N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tewari, AIR 1970 SC 786 = (1970 Cri LJ 764) the Division Bench decision of this Court in 1963 All LJ 334 = (1963 (2) Cri LJ 64) was no longer good law. The learned single Judge being of the opinion that the point raised before him was one of importance and likely to be raised in various cases which may be pendin