K. T. DESAI, M. R. MODY, J. M. SHELAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal appeal by five persons who were convicted after a single trial by the Sessions Judge of Panch Mahals. Two other persons convicted at the same trial have filed separate appeals. When the appeal came up for admission some difficulties presented themselves. One of them arises out of section 421 Cri. Pro. Code which reads as under: (1) On receiving the petition and copy under section 419 or section 420 the appellate Court shall peruse the same and if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering it may dismiss the appeal summarily: provided that no appeal presented under section 419 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his Pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same. (2) Before dismissing an appeal under this section the Court may call for the record of the case but shall not be bound to do so. ( 2 ) AS the appeal by the five convicted persons was filed as one appeal the question is whether under section 421 Cri. Pro. Code a part of the appeal namely that relating to one of the convicted persons or the appeals of some of the convicted persons can be dismissed summarily under section 421 To dismiss the appeals of one or some of the convicted persons summarily is not provided for or contemplated in section 421. ( 3 ) WHEN one appeal has been filed either that appeal has to be dismissed summarily or that appeal has to be heard on the merits and decided. When one appeal has been filed to dismiss part of it summarily while deciding to hear the remaining part of it on merits would be to do violence to section 421 and to treat one appeal in fact as several appeals. The difficulty presented by section 421 would not be there if every convicted person has to file a separate appeal. A similar difficult arises out of section 431 Cri. Pro. Code which reads as follows:every appeal under section 411a sub-section (2) or section 417 shall finally abate on the death of the accused and every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant. A similar difficult arises out of section 431 Cri. Pro. Code which reads as follows:every appeal under section 411a sub-section (2) or section 417 shall finally abate on the death of the accused and every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant. ( 4 ) THIS section does not provide for or contemplate abatement of an appeal in part. If one appeal is filed by three convicted persons B C and D and D one of them dies to order that the appeal of D abates and to order that the appeals of B and C should be heard would be to do violence to the language of section 431 and to treat the appeal really as three appeals. ( 5 ) ANOTHER difficulty is presented by section 423 Cri. Pro. Code subsection (b) of which provides as under:the appellate Court may in an appeal from a conviction (1) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retried by a Court of competent Jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial or (2) alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the finding reduce the sentence or (3) with or without such reduction and with or without altering the finding alter the nature of the sentence but subject to the provisions of section 106 sub-section (3) not so as to enhance the same. ( 6 ) THE powers of Appellate Court in disposing of appeals are contained in this section. When the appellate Court admits an appeal it can dispose of it in the manner prescribed in sub-section (b) of sec. 423 (1) Cri. Pro. Code namely (1) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be tried or committed for trial or (2) alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the finding reduce the sentence or (3) with or without such reduction and with or without altering the finding alter the nature of the sentence but subject to the provisions of section 106 sub-section (3) not so as to enhance the same. These three alternative powers are given to the appellate Court. When disposing of an appeal it can adopt only one of these three alternatives. These three alternative powers are given to the appellate Court. When disposing of an appeal it can adopt only one of these three alternatives. But if the view is taken that one joint appeal by several accused is admissible the appellate Court in disposing of that appeal may have to exercise all these three kinds of powers. It may reverse the finding and sentence of D maintain the sentence of P and reduce the sentence of H. Such an order would not be an order under section 423 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 7 ) IN Ghela Jadav v. State of Bombay A. I. R. 1960 Supreme Court 748 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:while an Appellate Court has power to dismiss an appeal summarily if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering it has no power to direct that the appeal shall be heard only on the point of sentence. Such an order is not an order of summary dismissal under sec 421 and neither is it an order in terms of S. 422 of the Code. The Appellate Court after hearing the appeal certainly has the power under S. 423 in finally disposing of the appeal to reduce the sentence but that does not entitle it to direct that an appeal is admitted only on the question of sentence. Such an order if passed is invalid and the appellant is entitled to insist that the appeal should be heard on merits. ( 8 ) IN other words they held that it will not be open to an appellate Court to split up an appeal and to reject a portion of it while admitting the rest of it. When an appeal is filed it is not open to the appellate Court to reject the appeal on the point of the legality of conviction while admitting the appeal on the point of sentence. Their Lordships declared this to be the law in view of the provisions of section 422 Criminal Procedure Code. Section 421 Cri. Pro. Code provides that on receiving the petition of appeal the appellate Court may dismiss the appeal summarily. Their Lordships declared this to be the law in view of the provisions of section 422 Criminal Procedure Code. Section 421 Cri. Pro. Code provides that on receiving the petition of appeal the appellate Court may dismiss the appeal summarily. Sec. 422 Criminal Procedure Code provides that if the appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily it shall cause notice to be given to the appellant or his pleader and to such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if the appellate Court passes an order directing that the appeal shall be heard only on the point of sentence such an order is neither an order of summary dismissal under sec. 421 nor is it an order in terms of sec. 422 Cri. Pro. Code. ( 9 ) THE question therefore arises whether when several persons are convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge it is open to all or some of them to file one joint petition of appeal or whether it is necessary for every such convicted person to file a separate petition of appeal. ( 10 ) CHAPTER XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with appeals. It is not necessary to refer to some of the sections in this Chapter for deciding the matter at present in issue. Sec. 410 provides that any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge may appeal to the High Court. It is possible to take two views on the interpretation of this section. When a Sessions Judge tries five accused persons D E P a and H he may convict D under a particular section and he may acquit E. He may convict F under a different section. He may acquit G and he may convict H under a third section. In such a case it can be said that there are three convictions and two acquittals. D is not aggrieved by the conviction of F and H F is not aggrieved by the conviction of D and H and H is not aggrieved by the conviction of D and P. In this view D F and H are aggrieved persons and they may file separate appeals. D is not aggrieved by the conviction of F and H F is not aggrieved by the conviction of D and H and H is not aggrieved by the conviction of D and P. In this view D F and H are aggrieved persons and they may file separate appeals. But another view is also possible that the words any person would include the plural and would include persons in view of section 13 of the General Clauses Act which reads as follows:gender and number:- In all Central Acts and Regulations unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context (1) words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females and (2) words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa ( 11 ) BUT the rule contained in section 13 of the General Clauses Act is always subject to the context. We have therefore to see whether there is anything in Chapter XXXI to show that there should be separate appeals by persons convicted on a single trial held by the Sessions Judge or whether the Cri. Pro. Code permits one joint appeal by all the persons convicted or whether the Code is silent on this point. ( 12 ) SECTION 419 Criminal Procedure Code provides as under:every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader and every such petition shall ( unless the Court to which it is presented otherwise directs ) be accompanied by a copy of the Judgment or order appealed against and in cases tried by a jury a copy of the heads of the charge recorded under section 367. ( 13 ) IT therefore provides for every appeal that there must be a petition in writing. In view of the word every it is not open to read the word appeal in plural. The expression every appeal would mean every single appeal. The next important section is sec. 421 the first part of which reads as under:on receiving the petition and copy under sec. 419 or section 420 the appellate Court shall peruse the same and if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering. it may dismiss the appeal summarily. The expression every appeal would mean every single appeal. The next important section is sec. 421 the first part of which reads as under:on receiving the petition and copy under sec. 419 or section 420 the appellate Court shall peruse the same and if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering. it may dismiss the appeal summarily. ( 14 ) IF we interpret in such term that three persons convicted on a single trial can file a single petition the effect of section 421 would be that either the whole appeal has to be dismissed summarily or the whole appeal has to be admitted. It does not contemplate the splitting of an appeal with reference to various accused. That an appeal cannot be split up is the view taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case. In view of the wording of section 421 one reasonable view to take would be that the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates a separate appeal by every separate accused and a separate petition in respect of every separate appeal. ( 15 ) NOW we turn to section 423 which provides as under:the appellate Court may in an appeal from a conviction (1) reverse the Ending and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial or (2) alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the finding reduce the sentence or (3) with or without such reduction and with or without altering the finding alter the nature of the sentence but subject to the provisions of section 106 sub-section (3) not so as to enhance the same. ( 16 ) THE powers of appellate Court in disposing of appeals are contained in this section. When the appellate Court admits an appeal it can dispose of it in the manner prescribed in sub-section (b) of sec. 423 (1) Cri. ( 16 ) THE powers of appellate Court in disposing of appeals are contained in this section. When the appellate Court admits an appeal it can dispose of it in the manner prescribed in sub-section (b) of sec. 423 (1) Cri. Pro Code namely (1) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be tried or committed for trial or (2) alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the finding reduce the sentence or (3) with or without such reduction and with or without altering the finding alter the nature of the sentence but subject to the provisions of section 106 sub-section (3) not so as to enhance the same. These three alternative powers are given to the appellate Court. When disposing of an appeal it can adopt only one of these three alternatives. But if the view is taken that one joint appeal by several accused is admissible the appellate Court in disposing of that appeal may have to exercise all these three kinds of powers. It may reverse the finding and sentence of D maintain the sentence of P and reduce the sentence of H. Such an order could not be an order under section 423 Criminal Procedure Code in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. If we take the view that D P and H should file separate appeals then the procedure causes no difficulty whatsoever because the appellate Court can proceed in accordance with sub-section (b) of section 423 (1) Cri. Pro. Code in the appeal of D and also separately in the appeal of P and in the appeal of H. But if the view is taken that one joint appeal is permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code Judges will be forced to do violence to the language used in sec. 423 by using three different types of powers in the same appeal while section 423 allows them to use only one of the three types of powers. Another section which causes difficulty is section 431 Cri. Pro. Code which provides as under :every appeal under section 411a sub-section (2) or section 417 shall finally abate on the death of the accused and every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant. Another section which causes difficulty is section 431 Cri. Pro. Code which provides as under :every appeal under section 411a sub-section (2) or section 417 shall finally abate on the death of the accused and every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant. ( 17 ) IF D P and H can file a joint appeal there would be only one appeal and the question would be whether on the death of H the appeal abates. Section 431 Cri. Pro. Code does not contemplate the abatement of any part of an appeal. Either the appeal abates as a whole or it does not abate. But if we take the view that one joint appeal of D P and H is permissible then the appellate Court would be forced again to do violence to the language of section 431 of the Code in saying that although there is one appeal the appeal of D does not abate the appeal of P does not abate but the appeal of H abates. It is therefore possible to hold that in view of the context of Chapter XXXI Criminal Pro. Code the word appeal should be read in the singular and not in the plural. The fact that when the context so requires words in the singular cannot be read in plural is clear from section 13 of the General Clauses Act. This was also the view taken in Budhai Sheik v. Emperor I. L. R. 33 Calcutta 292 with reference to sections 234 and 239 Cri. Pro. Code. It was there held that section 234 by its terms refers to the case of a single accused and is not applicable where several persons are tried jointly under sec. 239. ( 18 ) A rule has been framed by the Bombay High Court in the Appellate Side Rules. This rule is rule No. 6 in Chapter XXVI of the Rules which reads as under:all persons aggrieved by a judgment or an order passed in a criminal case may join in one appeal or application for revision and one copy of the judgment or order complained of shall be sufficient. ( 19 ) THIS rule does give a right to all persons aggrieved by the judgment in a criminal case to join in one appeal. ( 19 ) THIS rule does give a right to all persons aggrieved by the judgment in a criminal case to join in one appeal. But if the Criminal Procedure Code clearly contemplates separate appeals by different convicted persons then the rule would not be consistent with the Criminal Procedure Code. The rule would be valid if the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate separate appeals by separate convicted persons or if the Code is silent on the point. ( 20 ) BUT in view of the provisions contained in sections 410 419 422 423 and 431 Cri. Pro. Code it is not possible to take the view that the Criminal Procedure Code is silent on this point. The Code clearly contemplates separate appeals by separate persons convicted on a single trial held by a Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge. But if the Criminal Procedure Code is not silent on the point and clearly contemplates a separate appeal by separate convicted persons then Rule 6 framed by the High Court would be inconsistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure. . ( 21 ) ON this question different views have been taken by the different High Courts. In Emperor v. Sitaram 5 Bom. Law Reporter 704 a similar question did arise for decision. But in that case two accused made together with another co-accused a joint appeal to the District Magistrate and the High Court only dealt with the question whether the District Magistrate was right or wrong in not dispensing with separate copies of the judgment appealed against. It appears that in the joint appeal a copy of the judgment was filed. If there was a joint appeal it is difficult to understand how a question of two copies of the judgment arose. In Maharaj Singh Gond v. Emperor A. I. R. 1927 Nagpur 48 it was observed as under :appeals by different persons may be heard together but they must obviously be made separately. In State Government Madhya Pradesh v. Vishwanath A. I. R. 1954 Nagpur 231 the point was not directly under consideration but it was held that the appeal may be split up and heard against the accused other than an absconding one. In this case there was an appeal by the State against acquittal of several accused. In State Government Madhya Pradesh v. Vishwanath A. I. R. 1954 Nagpur 231 the point was not directly under consideration but it was held that the appeal may be split up and heard against the accused other than an absconding one. In this case there was an appeal by the State against acquittal of several accused. The question will have to be considered whether the view that an appeal may be split up can be held good in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In this case no reference was made to the provisions contained in Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Pro. Code. In Mulha v. Emperor A. I. R. 1936 Lahore 859 a reference was made to Mt. Batasha v. Emperor 18 Cr. L. J. 812 A. I. R. 1917 Oudh 329 where the High Court set aside the order of the District Magistrate who refused to hear an appeal of seven persons on the ground that there should have been seven distinct petitions of appeal. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner Oudh held that the persons convicted together may appeal in one petition of appeal. In Lahore case the provisions of sections 410 419 421 423 and 431 had not been considered. In Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs Bengal v. Golok Tikadar and others A. I. R. 1944 Calcutta 234 the Government appeal under sec. 417 Cri. Pro. Code was in respect of 58 accused persons but notice had not been served on 18 of the accused persons. The High Court held that in effect 58 appeals against 58 different accused persons had been presented by the local government. The Calcutta High Court took the view that although there was only one petition of appeal in effect there were 58 different appeals. In regard to appeals by convicted persons therefore the question is whether when several persons are convicted on a single trial held by the Sessions Judge they should file several petitions of appeal as contemplated in sec 419 Cri. Pro. Code or whether they can file one joint petition of appeal. In regard to appeals by convicted persons therefore the question is whether when several persons are convicted on a single trial held by the Sessions Judge they should file several petitions of appeal as contemplated in sec 419 Cri. Pro. Code or whether they can file one joint petition of appeal. ( 22 ) IN the course of arguments three other points have also been suggested namely (1) Whether this Bench is competent to decide the question of the validity of a rule made by the High Court and whether if rule framed by the High Court is ultra vires the Criminal Procedure Code the whole High Court should decide it; (2) whether this Court has authority under the Charter to make a reference to a larger Bench; and (3) the question of the powers of one larger Division Bench vis--vis another smaller Division Bench. ( 23 ) THE jurisdiction and powers of the High Court rest on the Charter and the Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution or in the Charter or in the High Courts Act 1861 for any reference by a Division Bench of a High Court to another Division Bench. Article 28 of the Charter enables the High Court to hear cases referred to it by Criminal Court subordinate to its appellate jurisdiction. Even in Civil matters Article 15 of the Charter does not contemplate references by Division Benches of a High Court. ( 24 ) SECTION 32 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act 1960 has also no bearing on this question. That section refers to the law in force immediately before 1-5-60 with respect to practice and procedure in the High Court. We have not been able to discover any law in force or any rules or orders in force relating to references by Division Benches of a High Court. Rules or orders made by the High Court of Bombay cannot also enlarge the jurisdiction or powers of Benches of the High Court. ( 25 ) SECTION 35 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act provides that the law in force immediately before the appointed day relating to powers of Divisions Courts of the High Court of Bombay shall apply in relation to the High Court of Gujarat. Section 13 of the High Courts Act 1861 refers only to the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in a High Court. Section 13 of the High Courts Act 1861 refers only to the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in a High Court. Power to make references is not vested in a High Court. We have therefore to refer only to the Constitution the High Courts Act 1861 and the Charter to ascertain the powers of Division Courts of the High Court of Gujarat. Neither the Constitution nor the High Courts Act 1861 nor the Charter gives us as a Division Court the jurisdiction to make a reference to another Division Bench even if it consists of more than two Judges. We therefore request the Honourable the Chief Justice to place this Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1961 for admission before a larger Division Bench so that the appeal and the following questions arising in that appeal may be decided by that Bench : (1) Whether when several persons are convicted at a single trial by a Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge all or some of the convicted persons can file one joint petition of appeal to the High Court or whether in such a case it is necessary to file separate appeals with separate petitions ? (2) Whether Rule 6 in Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules is inconsistent with Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code ? ( 26 ) THE question referred to was considered by a Pull Bench composed of K. T. Desai C. J. J. M. Shelat and M. R. Mody JJ. Bench are: (1) Whether when several persons are convicted at a single trial by a Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge all or some of the convicted persons can file one joint petition of appeal to the High Court or whether in such a case it is necessary to file separate appeals with separate petitions ? (2) Whether Rule 6 in Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules is inconsistent with Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code ? at the outset it was urged before us that the Reference to this Pull Bench by the Division Bench consisting of Justice Raju and Justice Bakshi is not competent. We see no force in this contention. at the outset it was urged before us that the Reference to this Pull Bench by the Division Bench consisting of Justice Raju and Justice Bakshi is not competent. We see no force in this contention. The Chief Justice has the power to constitute a Pull Bench and in the exercise of the power of the Chief Justice this Pull Bench has been constituted on a reference being made for that purpose by a Division Bench of this Court. Ordinarily except for compelling reasons a Division Bench does not refer a matter to the Chief Justice for constituting a Pull Bench. Such an occasion sometimes arises when a Division Bench finds itself in a predicament when two former decisions of Division Benches conflicting with each other are present to its mind with the result that whatever decision it may give it would be going contrary to the decision of one Division Bench. Apart from such conflicts it is in rare cases that a Reference is made to the Chief Justice for constituting a Pull Bench. In the present case in view of the fact that there was a Rule of long standing which had worked exceedingly well in the past which appeared to the referring Bench to be invalid as being contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in view of the fact that the result of holding the rule to be invalid would be to upset the existing practice of many years that the Division Bench thought it fit to make a request for the formation of a Full Bench. The Pull Bench has been duly constituted and it has jurisdiction to determine the aforesaid questions including the question of the validity of the aforesaid High Court rule. ( 27 ) DEALING with the merits of the matter the Bombay High Court as far back as 12th April 1900 framed a rule to the effect that in criminal matters when several persons complain of one order or judgment affecting them all may join in one appeal or application for revision. A rule to this effect has been in operation since over sixty years and is now sought to be challenged on the ground that the same is inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code. A rule to this effect has been in operation since over sixty years and is now sought to be challenged on the ground that the same is inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 28 ) IT will be necessary to examine some of the provisions of Chapter XXXI which it is urged militate against the validity of this rule. Section 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to appeals provides as under : (1) On receiving the petition and copy under section 419 or section 420 the appellate Court shall peruse the same and If it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering it may dismiss the appeal summarily; provided that no appeal presented under section 419 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same. ( 29 ) ANOTHER provision invoked in this connection is section 423 dealing with powers of the appellate Court in disposing of an appeal. It provides as under :the appellate Court shall then send for the record of the case if such record is not already in Court. After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader if he appears and the Public Prosecutor If he appears and in case of an appeal under section 411-A sub-section (2) or section 417 the accused if he appears the Court may if it considers that there is not sufficient ground for interfering dismiss the appeal or may (a) in an appeal from an order of acquittal reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made or that the accused be retried or committed for trial as the case may be or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law; (b) In an appeal from a conviction (1) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial or (2) alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the finding reduce the sentence. or (3) with or without such reduction and with or without altering the finding alter the nature of the sentence but subject to the provisions of section 106 sub-section (3) not so as to enhance the same; (c) in an appeal from any other order alter or reverse such order; (d) make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper. ( 30 ) SECTION 431 relating to abatement of appeal which is also invoked in this connection provides as under :every appeal under section 411-A sub-section (1) or section 417 shall finally abate on the death of the accused and every other appeal under this Chapter except an appeal from a sentence of fine shall finally abate on the death of the appellant. ( 31 ) SECTION 421 provides for summary dismissal of an appeal. It is urged that an appeal may be summarily dismissed under section 421 or if it is not so dismissed action has to be taken as provided in section 422 by issuing notice of appeal. It is urged that an appeal cannot be split up if several persons have filed one appeal and that either it has to be summarily rejected as a whole or a notice of appeal must be issued under section 422 In connection with the provisions of section 493 it is stated that the appellate Court is empowered to pass various orders as therein provided. It is urged that the appellate Court may choose any of the orders therein provided but can only pass one of the several orders therein mentioned in one appeal. It is urged that the appellate Court is not competent to pass orders of more than one kind in a single appeal. In connection with section 431 it is urged that the death of an accused in the cases mentioned therein would operate by way of abatement of the appeal. If more than one accused are permitted to file one single appeal then in spite of the death of one of the accused the appeal cannot be said to abate. If it is directed that such appeal abates then it would abate are regards all the accused. In the referring judgment it has been stated that all these provisions clearly indicate that there should be a separate appeal filed by each person who is aggrieved by a conviction against him. If it is directed that such appeal abates then it would abate are regards all the accused. In the referring judgment it has been stated that all these provisions clearly indicate that there should be a separate appeal filed by each person who is aggrieved by a conviction against him. At first blush this approach appears to be logical. What these sections however lay down are the powers of the Court relating to summary dismissal the powers of the Court relating to an appeal and the abatement of an appeal when filed. These sections do not deal with the question of joinder of parties for the purpose of an appeal and the effect of such joinder. ( 32 ) RULE 6 of the Appellate Side Rules dealing with a joint appeal or application by persons convicted by the same judgment provides as under :all persons aggrieved by a judgment or an order passed in a criminal case may join in one appeal or application for revision and one copy of the judgment or order complained of shall be sufficient ( 33 ) WHAT we have to consider is the effect of this rule. This rule provides that where there is a single judgment or order and more persons than one are aggrieved by that judgment they may join in instituting one appeal or a single application for revision. This rule is a rule not dealing with substantive rights but a rule dealing with procedure. Under the Criminal Procedure Code section 410 a right is given to any person convicted at a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge to appeal to the High Court. In exercise of that right more than one persons are enabled to join together to prefer one appeal under the provision of rule 6. This rule is pre-eminently a rule of convenience and a rule based on sound common sense. So far as we are aware this rule has stood the test of time and has not during the last sixty years at any time been challenged before the Bombay High Court. This rule is pre-eminently a rule of convenience and a rule based on sound common sense. So far as we are aware this rule has stood the test of time and has not during the last sixty years at any time been challenged before the Bombay High Court. The fundamental fallacy underlying the argument based on sections 421 423 and section 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in assuming that when one joint appeal is filed by several persons it is to be treated for all purposes as if it was a single appeal by a single person. When a joint appeal is instituted under rule 6 if that appeal is regarded as only one joint appeal jointly made which could only jointly subsist and in respect whereof only one common order could be passed then there is something to be said about such a rule being in contravention of the provisions of sections 421 422 and 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If an appeal is filed under the provisions of rule 6 by several persons and if that is treated as an appeal which can either abate as a whole against all persons or does not abate at all as one in respect whereof a summary order of dismissal can be passed against all the persons preferring the appeal or against none or in respect whereof only one of the several kinds of orders referred to in section 431 could be passed against all the accused then it is possible to suggest that by rule 6 something has been sought to be done which is not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code to do and which is contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Rule 6 however is not operative so as to bring about the aforesaid result. Merely because several persons join in one appeal it does not become one indivisible non-separable appeal. The effect of several persons joining in one appeal is that they are enabled by a single petition to institute an appeal which is liable to be regarded treated and dealt with as if it was an appeal by each of the persons instituting that appeal. The effect of several persons joining in one appeal is that they are enabled by a single petition to institute an appeal which is liable to be regarded treated and dealt with as if it was an appeal by each of the persons instituting that appeal. In connection with such an appeal it is open to the Court under the provisions of section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code to summarily dismiss the appeal of one of the appellants and to proceed to issue notice in respect of the appeal instituted by the remaining appellants. Such an appeal is liable to abate only in respect of the appellant who dies who comes within the provisions contained in section 431. In connection with such an appeal it is open to the High Court to confirm the sentence against one of the appellants to acquit another appellant and to direct a notice of enhancement against the third and to pass an enhanced sentence. These powers of the High Court are in no way interfered with or sought to be affected by the provisions of rule 6. Even though there is one appeal which is allowed to be filed under rule 6. the effect of such filing is the same as if the appeal had been instituted by each one of the appellants. This rule has been framed merely as a rule of convenience. ( 34 ) IN this connection it would not be out of place to consider a case where a number of persons who had been jointly tried have been acquitted and the Government desires to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal passed against several accused jointly tried. In such a case a single appeal has been regarded as competent. Such appeal does not fall within the ambit of rule 6. In this connection a reference may be made to a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in A. I. R. 1944 Calcutta page 234 in the case of Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs Bengal v. Golok Tikadar and others. In that case the government filed an appeal under section 417 against 58 persons. Orders had been passed in that appeal directing issue of notice against all the 58 accused persons. Notices however were served only on 40 out of the 58 accused. In that case the government filed an appeal under section 417 against 58 persons. Orders had been passed in that appeal directing issue of notice against all the 58 accused persons. Notices however were served only on 40 out of the 58 accused. It was contended in that case that as only one appeal had been presented the appeal could not be heard until all the accused persons named in the memorandum of appeal had been served as piece-meal hearing of the appeal was contrary to the fundamental principles of criminal justice. It was held that there had been in effect 58 appeals against 58 different accused persons presented by the local Government and that there was no legal bar to separate hearing of the appeal against each separate accused person and that the appeal could proceed against those accused who had been served with notice of appeal This decision can also be usefully referred to for the purpose of considering the effect of instituting one appeal under the provisions contained in rule 6 framed by the Bombay High Court which is now applicable to the proceedings in this Court. ( 35 ) THERE is also a decision of the Lahore High Court reported in A. I. R. 1936 Lahore page 859 in the case of Mulha and Others v. Emperor. In that case it was laid down that a joint appeal by persons with common interest convicted at the same trial is in accordance with law and should be heard ( 36 ) THERE is however a decision of the Nagpur High Court reported in A. I. R. 1927 Nagpur page 48 in the case of Maharaj Singh Gond v. Emperor where a contrary view appears to have been taken. That is a decision of a single Judge of the Nagpur High Court. In that case six persons were convicted of rioting who filed one appeal by a single petition before the District Magistrate. This according to the learned Judge was obviously wrong Beyond stating that what was done was obviously wrong no reason is given why it was regarded as being wrong This decision does not throw any light upon the problem. In that case six persons were convicted of rioting who filed one appeal by a single petition before the District Magistrate. This according to the learned Judge was obviously wrong Beyond stating that what was done was obviously wrong no reason is given why it was regarded as being wrong This decision does not throw any light upon the problem. We have on the other hand a decision of a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court reported in A. I. R. 1954 Nagpur page 231 in the case of State Government Madhya Pradesh v. Vishwanath Nidhanji and others. In that case one appeal had been filed against several persons who had been jointly tried before the Nagpur High Court. One of the respondents was proclaimed an absconder under section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That appeal was heard against all respondents other than the one against whom a proclamation had been issued under section 87 and was disposed of. No objection was taken to the course adopted in that case. We are not aware whether the decision reported in A. I. R. 1927 Nagpur at page 48 has been followed in the Nagpur High Court itself. In fact we find that the same has not in fact been followed in the case reported in A. I. It 1954 Nagpur at page 231. ( 37 ) RELIANCE was placed in support of the argument that rule 6 is beyond the competence of the Bombay High Court on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1960 Supreme Court at page 748 in the case of Rabari Ghela Jadav v. State of Bombay. In that case the appellate Court had in the purported exercise of the powers given under section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code directed that the appeal should be heard only on the point of sentence. The appellate Court summarily dismissed the appeal as regards the conviction and limited the hearing of the appeal only on the question of the sentence. The appellate Court summarily dismissed the appeal as regards the conviction and limited the hearing of the appeal only on the question of the sentence. In dealing with the matter the Supreme Court observed that while an appellate Court had power to dismiss an appeal summarily if it considered that there was no sufficient ground for interfering it had no power to direct that the appeal should be heard only on the point of sentence and that such an order was not an order of summary dismissal under section 421 and that it was not also an order warranted by the provisions of section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was held by the Supreme Court that the provisions of section 421 do not contemplate a partial summary dismissal of an appeal. These observations have been made in connection with an appeal by a single individual. The Supreme Court had not to consider in that case the effect of several persons joining together in one appeal. That decision does not in any way help in construing the provisions of rule 6 framed by the Bombay High Court and considering the effect of an appeal instituted under the provisions contained in the said rule or the validity of the rule. A single appeal is being filed by several persons under the provisions framed by the Bombay High Court since the year 1900 without any objection. The rule has worked exceedingly well and has conduced to convenience. We do not see anything in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which would in any way affect the validity of that rule. That rule is in no way contrary or repugnant to any of the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. In our view the rule is valid and persons convicted at a single trial can join together and file one petition of appeal. ( 38 ) OUR answer to the questions are (1) when several persons are convicted at a single trial by a Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge all persons or some of the convicted persons can file one joint appeal in the High Court and it is not necessary for them to file separate appeals with separate petitions and (2) in the negative. The appeal will be dealt with by the Referring Bench in the light of the observations aforesaid. Answer accordingly. .