Madras High Court
Bapu Alias Audimulam Pillai vs Bapu Alias Krishnayen on 1 March, 1912
Equivalent citations: (1912)22MLJ419
JUDGMENT
1. We are not prepared to dissent from the conclusion arrived at by a Full Bench of this court in Muthusami Mudali v. Veeni Chetti (1877) 1 C.L.R. 275.
2. We think, however, the power conferred upon this court by Section 195 C1. (6), of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a part of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of this court conferred by Ch. 31 and 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a special power conferred by Section 195, Clause (6). It follows, therefore, that when the Judges are equally divided the case is governed by S. (36) of the Letters Patent and not by Section 429 or Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Our answer to the first question referred to us is in the affirmative. Our answer to the second question is that, in the case stated, the procedure described, in Clause (36) of the Letters Patent is to be followed.