JUDGMENT K. N. Singh, J. 1. On a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the following question has been placed before us for decision : "Whether proviso (a) to rule 2 of Chapter V, Part I of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, and the order dated 29-6-1978 passed by the chief Justice in exercise of the powers under the said proviso (a) are ultra vires of sections 368 and 369 CrPC read together ?" 2. The facts giving rise to the reference of the above noted question are necessary to be noted Latif, Jafir, Chhotey and Abdul Aziz applicants stood their trial for offences under sections 302 and 323/34 IPC before the Sessions Judge, Rampur. On conclusion of trial the: Sessions Judge acquitted the applicants. Against the aforesaid order of acquittal, the State Government preferred an appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before this Court. Along with the appeal the State filed a separate Miscellaneous application for grant of leave for filing appeal as contemplated by section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The appeal as well as the application for grant of leave both were listed together before brother I. P. Singh in accordance with the general order issued by the Chief Justice in exercise of his powers under the proviso (a) to rule 2 of Chapter V, Part I- High Court Rules, 1952. On 31-8-1984, I. P Singh, J. granted leave and entertained the appeal and directed for issue of notices and bailable warrants to the applicant-accused, in pursuance to the notice issued by the Court the accused put in appearance and tiled an application purporting to be under sections 378/384/382 of the Code read with Article 226 of the Constitution. On their behalf a submission was made before the learned Single Judge that a Judge singly has no jurisdiction to grant leave or to entertain the appeal and to issue notice to the accused in the appeal filed under section 378 of the Code. On their behalf a submission was made before the learned Single Judge that a Judge singly has no jurisdiction to grant leave or to entertain the appeal and to issue notice to the accused in the appeal filed under section 378 of the Code. A further submission was made that proviso (a) to rule 2 of Chapter V, Part I, High Court Rules, 1952 which confers power on the Chief Justice to direct that any case or class of cases may be heard by a Bench of two Judges, as well as the order dated 29-6-1978 issued by the Chief Justice were ultra vires of sections 368 and 369 of the Code, The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the matter was of wide importance and he therefore referred the question for decision to a larger Bench. Chapter XXXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (II of 1974) provides for appeals. Section 382 provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgement or order of a criminal court unless provided by the Code or any other law. Section 373 provides for appeals against certain orders to the Court of Sessions. Section 374 provides for appeal to the Supreme Court against conviction on a trial held by the High Court in exercise of its original Criminal jurisdiction. Section 377 provides that no appeal shall he in cases where the accused pleads guilty. Section 376 provides that no appeal shall lie in petty cases. Section 377 provides for appeal by the State Government against sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. Such appeals are required to be filed before the High Court. Section 378 provides for appeals in cases of acquittal. Sub-section (1) provides that the State Government may in any case direct the public prosecutor to file appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order or acquittal passed by any court other than the High court or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions in revision. This is subject to sub-sections (3) and (5). Sub-section (1) provides that the State Government may in any case direct the public prosecutor to file appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order or acquittal passed by any court other than the High court or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions in revision. This is subject to sub-sections (3) and (5). Sub-section (2) provides that if an order of acquittal is passed in a case in whicli the offence may have been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or by any other agency under any Central Act, other than the Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present appeal to the High Court from the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) provides that no appeal either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Sub-section (4) provides for filing of appeal by the complainant after obtaining special leave to appeal from the High Court against an order of acquittal where the order of acquittal may have been passed in a case instituted upon complaint. Sub-section (5) prescribes period of six months from filing appeal by a complainant against the order of acquittal. Section 382 lays down that every appeal shall be made in the form of petition in writing and presented by the appellant or his pleader and every such petition shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed against. Section 383 provides for falling appeal when the appellant is in jail. Section 384 confers power on the: appellate court to dismiss an appeal summarily after hearing the appellant. Section 385 prescribes procedure for hearing of appeals which are not dismissed summarily. Section 38b confers power on the appellate court to dismiss appeals filed under section 377 or 378 if there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the judgment or order under appeal. These are the provisions which regulate riling of appeal and its hearing. Chapter XXIX does not provide for hearing of appeal filed under Section 378 by a Single Judge or by a Bench of two Judges. 3. However, section 366 provides that in a case where the Court passes an order of death the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court and the sentence will not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. 3. However, section 366 provides that in a case where the Court passes an order of death the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court and the sentence will not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. Section 368 lays down that after the proceedings are submitted under section 366 the High Court may confirm the sentence or pass any sentence warranted by law or it may annul the conviction and paas any other sentence or it may acquit the accused. Section 369 lays down a mandatory provision that in every case submitted under section 366 for the confirmation of sentence or passing of any conviction and sentence shall be heard by at least two Judges when the High Court consists of two or more judges. Thus, 'section 369 is the only provision in the Code which provides ;for the hearing of the reference made under section 366 by a Bench of at least two Judges. Sections 368 and 369 do not relate to hearing and disposal of an appeal under section 378. These provisions have no bearing on the question whether an appeal against the order of acquittal should be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting singly or by a Bench of two Judges. 4. Constitution of Benches and allocation of cases for hearing to a single Judge or a Bench of two Judges is regulated by the Rules framed by the High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. This Court has also framed rules known as Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Chapter V of the Rules deals with jurisdiction of Judges sitting alone or in Division Bench. Rule 1 as contained in Chapter V provides that Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Courts as may be constituted from time to time and may do such work as may be allotted by the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions. Rule 2 prescribes matters which shall be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting alone. These include civil as well as matters arising out of Criminal law. Rule 2 (vii) which relates to criminal appeals and applications is as under : "2. Rule 2 prescribes matters which shall be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting alone. These include civil as well as matters arising out of Criminal law. Rule 2 (vii) which relates to criminal appeals and applications is as under : "2. Except as provided by these rules or any other law, the following cases shall be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting alone, namely- xx xx (vii) a Criminal Appeal, application or reflerence except- (a) an appeal or reference in a case in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for life has been passed. (b) an appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from an order of acquittal. (c)............ (d)............ (e)............ (f)............ Provided that- (a) The Chief Justice may direct that any case or class of cases which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone shall be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges or that any case or class or classes which may be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges by a Judge sitting alone. " Under the aforesaid provision a criminal appeal, application or reference shall be disposed of by a Judge sitting alone except an appeal or reference in which sentence of death or imprisonment for life has been passes as well as an appeal under section 378 of the Code from an order of acquittal. The rules provide that a Single Judge has no jurisdiction to hear or dispose of an appeal against the sentence of death or imprisonment for life. The Rules further provide that an appeal against order of acquittal under section 378 of the Code is to be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges. Proviso (a) to the rule confers power on the Chief Justice to direct that any case or class of cases which may be heard by a Single Judge sitting alone may be heard by a Bench of two Judges and similarly where a case is required to be heard by a Bench of two Judges, it may be heard by a Judge silting alone In pursuance of proviso (a) to the rule, the Chief Justice passed an order on 29-6-1978 which reads as follows :- "In exercise of powers conferred under the proviso (a) to rule 2, Chapter V, rules of the Court, 1952, Vol. 1, it is hereby ordered that henceforth all applications for leave or special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal as provided in sections 378 (3) and 378 (4) shall be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting alone. The provisions contained in rule 8, Chapter V, Rules of the Court 1952, Vol. I shall with necessary modifications and adaptations be read, interpreted and applied consistent with this order. This order shall be applicable to Lucknow Bench also" It is in pursuance of the above order that applications for leave under section 318(3) or special leave to appeal under section 37s (4) against order of acquittal are being heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting singly. As noted earlier, under the Rules an appeal or reference where a sentence of death of imprisonment for life has been passed cannot be heard by a Judge sitting alone, instead it is to be heard by a Bench of two Judges. Similarly, an appeal under section 378 from an order of acquittal is also to be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges but the order of the thief Justice issued under proviso (a) provides for hearing of the applications for leave or special leave to appeal by a Judge sitting alone. The Chief Justice appears to have issued the order dated 29 6 -1978 treating the application for leave and special leave as a separate proceeding from the appeal itself. Under the orders of the Chief Justice as well as the practice which is being followed in this Court an appeal against acquictal including an application for leave to appeal as contemplated by section 378 (3) or 378 (4) is listed before a Single Judge. If and when the Single Judge grants leave and entertains the appeal, it is placed before Division Bench for hearing in accordance to rule 2 (vii) (b). But if the leave is refused, the appeal stands dismissed. The order of the Chief Justice proceeds on the assumption that disposal of leave or special leave application as contemplated by section 378 (3) and 378 (4) is a separate proceeding from appeal against an order of acquittal. 5. In State of Rajasthan v. Ramdeen,, AIR 1977 SC 1328 it was held that no separate petition for the grant of leave for filing appeal against acquittal under section 378 (3) was necessary. 5. In State of Rajasthan v. Ramdeen,, AIR 1977 SC 1328 it was held that no separate petition for the grant of leave for filing appeal against acquittal under section 378 (3) was necessary. Under the law it will be perfectly in order if a composite application is made giving necessary facts and circumstances of the case with the grounds which may be urged in the appeal along with a prayer for leave to entertain appeal. It is not necessary that an application to entertain appeal should be lodged first and only after grant of leave the appeal may be preferred. However, under sub-section (4) of section 378, the complainant is required to make an application for grant of special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal. The difference in the language in sub-section (3) and (4) of sections 378 suggests that in a case where the order of acquittal may have been passed in a case instituted upon complaint an application has to be made by the complainant for the grant of special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, it further makes clear that the appeal may be presented only after the High Court has granted special leave, but where appeal against the order of acquittal is filed by the State either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), no separate application for grant of special leave is necessary. In such a case prayer for leave may be incorporated in the petition of appeal itself, 6. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dewadas, AIR 1982 SC 800 the Supreme Court ruled that an application for leave to appeal under sub-section (3) of section 378, without which no appeal under sub-section (1) and (2) can be entertained, was an integral part of the appeal and therefore it must be laid before a Bench of two Judges of the High Court under the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules. The Court further held that the Single Judge had no competence to hear and dispose of question of grant of leave under sub-section (3) of section 378. This decision was rendered on the consideration of the Madnya Pradesh High Court Rules. The Court further held that the Single Judge had no competence to hear and dispose of question of grant of leave under sub-section (3) of section 378. This decision was rendered on the consideration of the Madnya Pradesh High Court Rules. Rule 1 (q) (2), Chapter I of Part I of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, as quoted in the judgment, is almost identical to rule 2 (vii) (a), (b) of the Allahabad High Court Rules There was however no provision like proviso (a) conferring power on the Chief Justice to issue orders for hearing of a case by a Single Judge although under the Rules, it may be cognizable by a Bench of two Judges. Learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dewadas submitted that a Judge sitting singly has no jurisdiction to grant leave under sub-section (3) of section 378 of the code. On a careful scrutiny of the Supreme Court judgment we find that the view taken by the Supreme Court was based on the rules framed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court rules lay down that save as provided by law or by rules or by special orders of the Chief Justice all matters would be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges including an appeal against the order of acquittal. There, the Chief Justice had not issued any order for hearing ;and disposal of appeal against the order of acquittal by a Judge sitting singly. In the absence of any such direction by \he Chief Justice, an appeal against the order of acquittal by the State could only be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges in accordance with the Rules of Madhya Pradesh High Court. In the instant case, under rule 2 (vii) (b) also an appeal cannot be heard and disposed of by a Single Judge. But, proviso (a) confers power on the Chief Justice to direct for the hearing and disposal of any case or class of cases which may be heard by a Judas sitting alone to be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges. But, proviso (a) confers power on the Chief Justice to direct for the hearing and disposal of any case or class of cases which may be heard by a Judas sitting alone to be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges. In exercise of his powers under the proviso the Chief Justice has issued the order on 29-6-1978 directing that all applications for leave or special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal under section 378 of the Code shall be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting alone. The order of the Chief Justice has been issued in exercise of his statutory powers conferred on him by the Rules of the Count which does not offend section 368 or section 369 or any other provision of the Code. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State v. Ballister Singh, 1953 AWR 560 where it was held that a petition of Criminal appeal could be dismissed under section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 summarily but in cases which were cognizable by two Judges, an order of summary dismissal could only be passed by a Bench of two Judges. The Division Bench on an interpretation of rule 2 as contained in Chapter V of the Rules of this Court held that an appeal against order of acquittal cognizable by two Judges could not summarily be dismissed by a Judge sittingly singly. The judgment is, however, founded on the Rules as they existed in 1953. Rule 2 of Chapter V has gone drastic changes since then. The Bench had no occasion to consider the effect of proviso (a) to rule 2. or the order of the Chief Justice dated 29-6-1978, therefore the law laid down in Ballister Singh's case is not applicable to the instant case. 8. On a careful consideration of the provisions of the Code relating to filing of appeals, hearing and their disposal, we are of the opinion that there is no express provision in the Code requiring; hearing of an appeal against acquittal by Bench of two Judges. Section 369 read with section 366 contains mandatory direction that an appeal against sentence of death and proceedings submitted by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of death sentence shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges. Section 369 read with section 366 contains mandatory direction that an appeal against sentence of death and proceedings submitted by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of death sentence shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges. Apart from this, there is no other provision in the Code requiring hearing of appeal filed by the State under section 378 of the Code by a Bench of two Judges. In the absence of any such provision under the Code it is permissible to frame Rules under Article 225 of the Constitution providing for hearing of an appeal under section 378 of the Code by a Judge sitting alone. A rule framed by the High Court providing for hearing of appeal under section 378 of the Code by a Judge sitting alone is not ultra vires of any provision of the Code. In this view the order of the Chief Justice dated 29-6-1978 directing that a Judge sitting alone may hear and dispose of leave matters under section 378 (3) and (4) of the Code is not ultra vires of section 368 or 369 or any other provision of the Code. The applicants have suffered no prejudice as the appeal against their acquittal has not been heard and disposed of. They have ample opportunity to resist the appeal on merits before the Division Bench consisting of two Judges who will now hear the same. The Single Judge has merely granted leave to the State and entertained its appeal. He has nowhere expressed his opinion on merit. The procedure prescribed by the Rules and the order of the Chief Justice do not contravene any provision of law and the order of the Single Judge granting leave does not adversely affect any legal right of the applicants. The submission made on behalf of the applicants that proviso (a) to rule 2 as well as the order of the Chief Justice dated 29-6-1978 are ultra vires of sections 368 and 36v is wholly misconceived. Sections 368 and 369 do not relate to hearing of appeal against order of acquittal. The question whether leave application as contemplated by section 378 of the Code should be heard by a Single Judge or by a Bench of two Judges has no nexus to sections 368 and 369. 9. Sections 368 and 369 do not relate to hearing of appeal against order of acquittal. The question whether leave application as contemplated by section 378 of the Code should be heard by a Single Judge or by a Bench of two Judges has no nexus to sections 368 and 369. 9. In the result, we are of the opinion that proviso (a) to rule 2 of Chapter V of the High Court rules and tike order dated 29-6-1978 are not ultra vires of sections 368 and 369 of the Code. We answer the question accordingly. 10. Before parting with the case, we (think it necessary to observe that even though the order of the Chief Justice dated 29-6-1978 is not ultra vires of sections 368 and 369 of the Code, yet It requires reconsideration In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dewadas, AIR 1982 SC 800 . The order of the Chief Justice proceeds on the assumption that the grant of leave is a separate proceeding while the Supreme Court has held that grant of leave is an integral part of the appeal itself. An appeal against acquittal under section 378 is heard and disposed of under rule 2 (vii) (b) by a Bench of two Judges while according to the order of the Chief Justice, leave matter is listed before Single Judge for disposal, who has power to refuse or grant leave. If the Single Judge refuses to grant leave, the appeal stands dismissed finally although rule 2 (vii) (b) contemplates final disposal of an appeal against order of acquittal by a Bench of two Judges. This results into anomaly. To remove this anomaly it would be just and proper that leave matters should also be disposed of by Division Bench. We would suggest that appeals against order of acquittal involving sentence of death or imprisonment for life, on trial by the court of Sessions, together with applications for grant of leave should be heard by a bench of two Judges while appeals against acquittal in respect of other offences together with application for leave may be heard by a Single Judge. This will need amendment of the Rules. We accordingly direct that a copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for considering the matters. This will need amendment of the Rules. We accordingly direct that a copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for considering the matters. Let the papers of the case be laid before the appropriate Bench for hearing of the appeal. Question answered.