B.N.Katju, J. - (1.) The IX Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law, which arose in criminal revision No. 73 of 1984 Smt. Maharaji v. State of UP. and another pending before him, under section 395(2) Cr. P.C. for decision by this Court: 1. Whether the definition of National Highways contained in Section 4 of the National High Ways Act 1956 can be borrowed and allowed to over ride the definition of road contained in Sub-Section vi of section 2 of U.P. Roadside Land Control Act 1945 as amended by U.P. Act No. 6 of 1965 (Amendment coming in force retrospectively from April 15. 1957 i.e. the date of coming into force of the National High Ways Act 1956) especially in view of the specific mention in Section 4 of National Highways Act 1956 for the purposes of this Act High ways included.
(2.) Whether, the definition of road contained in Sub-clause vi of section 2 of U.P. Road side Land Control Act only refers to the metalled portion of the roads of all the roads including the National Highways or in case of national high ways it includes all the lands appurtenant as mentioned in section 4 of National Highways Act.
(3.) Whether the proviso to sub-clause (i) of section 3 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act 1945 by which a particular area is declared to be controlled by the Government refers only to the metalled road or to all lands appurtenant as defined in section 4 of the National High Ways Act with special reference and consideration to the Hindi and English version of the text of such relevant exception mentioned in the body of this reference. 2. It is mentioned in the referring order of the learned judge that these questions of law have been decided by a single Judge of this Court in State of UP. v. Jagat Bahadur1, but certain important arguments do not appear to have been advanced before him as they have not been considered in that case. 3. In our opinion, the subordinate courts are bound by the decisions of this Court, which must be followed by them, even if some arguments, which are advanced before them, have not been considered by this Court. It is for this Court to determine whether an earlier decision on a question of law by this Court requires reconsideration by a larger bench or not when the same question comes up before it for decision in a case subsequently. It is not open to the subordinate courts to refer questions of law decided by this Court for reconsideration by a larger bench under section 395(2) Cr. P.C. A question of law, which arises in a case pending before a subordinate court, can be referred to this Court for decision under section 395(2) Cr. P.C. only if it has not been decided by this Court. We are fortified in our view by the decision of this Court in the case of Karam Hussain v. Mohammad Khalil2, in which it has been held: It is the bounden duty of the Judges of Courts subordinate to this Court to implicitly follow the decisions pronounced by this Court and we deprecate any attempt on their part to criticize them or to refuse to follow them. The rule that every subordinate Judge is, in duty bound, loyally to accept the rulings of the High Court to which he is subordinate is a well recognized rule, to which attention has been called by this Court on a number of occasions. In the case of King Emperor v. Deni J., Stanely C.J. and Burkitt J. had to consider the genesis of this rule at some length and in the course of their judgment, they remarked that the Judge of a subordinate court however brilliant and well-trained a lawyer he may be, is not entitled to the powers of an appellate court or to refuse to follow the decision of the High Court to which his court is subordinate, and that it is the duty of every Subordinate Judge to accept loyally the rulings of this court unless and until they have been over-ruled by higher tribunal. No authority is necessary for the proposition that a judicial precedent of a higher court does not cease to be binding upon subordinate courts merely because all the relevant reasons in support of or against the view taken by the higher court are not mentioned in the judgment or the actual decision is based upon a reason which does not appeal to the subordinate courts. and the decision in the case of Emperor v. Ismail Hirji, in which it has been held: The learned Magistrate appears to doubt the correctness of the ruling in Emperor v. Abasbhai, though he admits that he is bound to follow it. I am of the opinion that it is not open to the Presidency Magistrate under section 432 Cr. P.C. to refer a point of law which is covered by an authority binding on him ;