- (1.) These two criminal appeals (Nos. 60 and 63 of 1965) with certificate raise a common question and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. The Gujarat High Court also recorded the main judgment only in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1965.
(2.) The question which arises for determination is whether, where several accused persons jointly tried have been acquitted by the trial Court, the State can prefer one appeal against the acquittal of all of them. The High Court held such a joint appeal not to be maintainable under Cr. P. C. and so holding rejected the appeal by the State without going into the merits. The Division Bench of the High Court speaking through Raju J. recorded a very lengthy order though the reasoning in support of the non-maintainability of the joint appeal is confined to a couple of pages only. The High Court in its order referred to Secs. 258, 410, 417, 419 and 423 of the Code and came to the conclusion that the scheme of Chapter XXXI of the Code as disclosed by these sections and particularly by sec. 419 is against the maintainability of a joint appeal by the State against an order acquitting several accused persons tried jointly. Sec. 419 was construed by the High Court to contain a bar against a joint appeal. The major portion of the impugned order dealt with the question of binding character of the Full Bench decision of that High Court since reported as Lalu Jela v. State of Gujarat (A. I. R. 1962 Guj, 125. III G. L. R. 397) on the Division Bench hearing the present appeals. After a lengthy discussion the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the Full Bench decision holding a joint appeal to be maintainable in law was not binding on it.
(3.) On the view that we propose to take on the question of maintainability of a joint appeal against a common order acquitting several accused persons tried jointly, we do not consider it necessary to embark on a lengthy discussion on the question of binding character of decisions of Full Benches and of Division Benches on future Benches of co-ordinate jurisdiction of the same High Court. We may only make a passing reference to the decisions of this Court cited at the bar in support of such binding character. In Mahadeolal Kanodiav. The Administrator General of West Bengal (1960) 3 S. C. R. 578, this Court observed as follows: "We have noticed with some regret that when the earlier decision of two judges of the same High Court in Beorajan 's case was cited before the learned judges who heard the present appeal they took on themselves to say that the previous decision was wrong, instead of following the usual procedure in case of difference of opinion with an earlier decision, of referring the question to a larger Bench. Judicial decorum no less than legal propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure. If one thing is more necessary in law than any other thing, it is the quality of certainty. That quality would totally disappear if judges of coordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start over-ruling one another's decision. If one Division Bench of a High Court is unable to distinguish a previous decision of another Division Bench and holding the view that the earlier decision is wrong, itself gives effect to that view, the result would be utter confusion.";