- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) AS this case; was passed over on last occasion on the reauest of the Counsel for the ppposite party, hence it was directed to be listed peremptorily in the next cause list. Today, it is listed peremptorily. ". Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A. G. A. An order dated 23-3-2005 passed by the Special Judge, S. C. S. T. Act Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, allowing criminal revision No. 272 of 2003 preferred by the opposite,party No. 2 and settrng aside the order of the C. J. M'. , Banda dated 30-10-2003 in C"rirninal Case No. 506 XII 2003 where by orders for investigations have been passed by the learned C. J. M. , Banda, has been challenged by means of this revision.
(3.) FIRSTLY it was argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the aforesaid order is not revisable and he has placed reliance on a Single Judge decision of this Court in Vanshu v. State of U. P. , 2007 (8) ADJ 277, passed by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad. , who has relied on his earlier decision in Rakesh Puri and another v. State of U. P. , 2006 (56) ACC 516, for this proposition. His Lordship has sought to distinguish a Divisian Bench decision in the case of Ajay Malaviya v. State of U. P. , 2001 Cri LJ 313 and a Single Judge decision in Sabry. Jaswant, 2002 ALJ 226, by holding that the Division Bench decision in Ajay Malaviya and the Single Judge decision in Sab were 'perincuriam' as according to His Lord ship statutory provisions of Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C: have been violated. In my view, a Single Judge ought not to have declared a law given by a Division Bench as penncur am and the proper course in such proceeding was to have referred the matter to a larger Bench, in case he was not in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench.;