Chapter XXVII
Section 370 CrPC: Procedure in case of difference of opinion
New Law Update (2024)
Section 444 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural / Administrative
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
Where any such case is heard before a Bench of Judges and such Judges are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be decided in the manner provided by Section 392.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 392 CrPC
This crucial section details the procedure when judges on a High Court Bench are equally divided in their opinion regarding an appeal. It mandates that the appeal be laid before another Judge of the same Court, whose opinion, after a fresh hearing if deemed necessary, will determine the final judgment or order, thus resolving the judicial deadlock.
Landmark Judgements
Lachhman Singh v. The State, AIR 1951 SC 244:
This landmark case affirmed the principle and procedure to be followed when a Division Bench of a High Court is equally divided in opinion, mandating that the matter be referred to a third judge for resolution, whose opinion shall prevail.
State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1977 SC 1761:
This judgment, while primarily dealing with the administrative powers of the Chief Justice in constituting benches, implicitly reinforces the procedural mechanism under Section 392 CrPC for handling cases where a difference of opinion arises amongst judges.