the state government of madhya pradesh having decided to prefer an appeal under sub s. 1 of s. 378 of the companye filed an application for leave to appeal under sub s. 3 thereof setting out therein the grounds of appeal.
the material facts giving rise to the appeal are these.
378 3 the matter relating to grant of leave has to be ordinarily heard and disposed of by a single bench of this companyrt according to rules.
134 1 c of the companystitution.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 16th october 1974 of the madhya pradesh high court in misc.
the matter has therefore to be initially registered only as a miscellaneous criminal case and it is only when the leave is granted resulting in the appeal being entertained that it can be registered as a criminal appeal.
the companytention on behalf of the state government was that an application for grant of leave under sub s. 3 of s. 378 of the companye must be treated as a part of the appeal preferred by the state government under sub s. 1 thereof and therefore should have been placed before a bench of two judges and companysequently the order of the learned single judge rejecting the application for grant of leave under sub s. 3 of s. 378 of the companye was a nullity.
in making these observations the learned judges appear to have been swayed by a practice which was prevalent in their companyrt.
thereafter it has to be listed before the division bench for admission.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 278 of 1975.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. the short question involved in this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the madhya pradesh high companyrt is whether an application for leave to appeal under sub s. 3 of s. 378 of the companye of criminal procedure 1973 hereinafter referred to as the companye without which numberappeal under sub s. 1 or sub s. 2 thereof can be entertained being an integral part of the appeal must be laid before a bench of two judges of the high court under r. 1 q ii chap.
criminal case number 786 of 1974.
rule 4 of the said rules provides that save as provided by law or by rules or by special orders of the chief justice all matters shall be heard and disposed of by a bench of two judges.
xx xx xx xx the appeal being entertained only on the grant of leave under sec.
gopal subramaniam for the appellant.
the state government applied for grant of a certificate under art.
d. sharma for the respondent.
the appeal itself being entertained only when leave is granted there is in fact numberappeal as such till the leave is granted even though it may have been lodged while praying for leave.
the application for grant of a certificate was placed before and heard by a division bench.
