JUDGMENT S. N. Jha & B. N. Agrawal, JJ.-A very unfortunate situation has arisen• in this appeal. 2. By judgment dated 30.9.1983 passed in Sessions Trial no. 359/10 of 1981/82, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibassa, had convicted these two appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Against their aforesaid conviction and sentence, these two appellants had preferred a regular appeal before this Court giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1983 (R) which was dismissed by Ranchi Bench of this Court on 21.2.1985 and the conviction and sentence of the aforesaid two appellants were upheld. 3. Thereafter it appears that the aforesaid two appellants also preferred a jail appeal before Ranchi Bench of this Court against their aforesaid conviction and sentence which gave rise to the present appeal. 4. When this jail appeal was placed for admission before Division Bench on 10.4.1987, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was admitted. Thereafter, records were called for from the trial court and this appeal was placed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before a Bench consisting of one of my learned brothers, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. N. Agrawal, a party to this Bench, on which day the appeal was heard in part and on the next date, that is, on 9.8.1988, the hearing was concluded and judgment was delivered allowing the appeal and setting aside the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed against the aforesaid appellants. 5. After the judgment was delivered on 9.8.1988, the release order was sent to the concerned authority for releasing the appellants from jail custody. When the copy of the judgment dated 9.8.1988 passed in this appeal was received by the trial court, it could be discovered by the trial court that the appellants' regular criminal appeal, mentioned above, had already been dismissed by this Court, In view of the fact that the trial court had received two contradictory judgments from this Court, the matter was reported to this Court by letter dated 31.8.1988 and thus the matter was placed for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. This Court thereafter found that the appellants had deliberately suppressed while preferring jail appeal that they had earlier preferred regular criminal appeal before this Court and the same was dismissed. This Court thereafter found that the appellants had deliberately suppressed while preferring jail appeal that they had earlier preferred regular criminal appeal before this Court and the same was dismissed. Neither the High Court office had pointed out this fact that regular criminal appeal was preferred by these two appellants which had earlier been dismissed nor the trial court when the requisition in this appeal was sent for sending records, pointed out the same. Therefore, in ignorance of these facts, this appeal was heard on merit and decided, as noticed above. 6. This Court vide order dated 12.10.1988 issued notice to the appellants to show cause why the judgment of acquittal dated 9. 8.1988 passed by this Court in this appeal be not recalled on account of suppression of the fact that that the appellants had earlier moved this Court by filing regular appeal which was already dismissed as far back as 21.2.1985. 7. Pursuant to the said notice, the appellants had sent a show cause stating, inter alia, that they had no knowledge of the dismissal of, their regular appeal. As the facts stand, we are unable to accept this plea of ignorance because from the records it appears that a petition for obtaining copy of judgment was filed on behalf of the appellants on 4.12.1986. That means, they had again applied for certified copy of the trial court judgment after their regular appeal was dismissed by this Court in the year 1985. In that view of the matter, we are not satisfied with this plea that they had no know ledge of the result of their regular criminal appeal. This jail appeal has been filed in the year 1987. 8. When the matter was again placed for orders before a Bench of this Court, this Court vide order dated 11.9.1989 considered the matter on different aspects and requested Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, Senior Advocate, to assist the Court on behalf of the two convicts as to what should be done in this matter. 9. The matter is clear now. The regular appeal filed by the aforesaid convicts had already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.2.1985 and the jail appeal filed subsequently was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court in ignorance of the fact that the regular appeal had already been decided on merit and dismissed. 10. Mr. The regular appeal filed by the aforesaid convicts had already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.2.1985 and the jail appeal filed subsequently was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court in ignorance of the fact that the regular appeal had already been decided on merit and dismissed. 10. Mr. Prasad while assisting the Court posed a question as to which of the judgments should be implemented because two contradictory judgments have been delivered by Division Bench of this Court. According to Mr. Prasad, this Court should pass order by exercising power under its writ jurisdiction in the ends of justice, because in the subsequent judgment, the Court has given a well reasoned judgment and considered all the aspects of the case, but the Bench passing earlier judgment has not considered the matter in detail. Therefore, this Court should pass a third judgment by exercising power under its writ jurisdiction in the ends of justice. In support of his submission, Mr. Prasad has referred to the decision in K. K. Muthukutty Valdhyan vs. Special Deputy Commissioner (1988 B. B. C. J., 79- S. C.). But the facts of that case are not applicable in the instant case. 11. We are not able to appreciate the submission made by Mr. Prasad. We are not considering the merit of the appeal. Rightly or wrongly, a Division Bench of this Court had already heard the matter on merit and dismissed the appeal which became final. This fact was suppressed by the appellants. It appear that when these two appellants knew about the aforesaid judgment passed by Ranchi Bench of this Court in the said appeal, they preferred a jail appeal before Ranchi Bench of this Court against their aforesaid conviction and sentence which gave rise to the subsequent appeal. After scrutinising the records, we are of the opinion that the appellants had deliberately suppressed the fact while preferring this jail appeal in the year 1987 that they had earlier preferred a regular criminal appeal before this Court which had already been dismissed in the year 1985. We have already indicated above that neither the High Court office nor the trial court ever drew attention of this Court. Therefore, the subsequent judgment was passed in ignorance of these facts, although the said Bench had no jurisdiction to pass the subsequent judgment. We have already indicated above that neither the High Court office nor the trial court ever drew attention of this Court. Therefore, the subsequent judgment was passed in ignorance of these facts, although the said Bench had no jurisdiction to pass the subsequent judgment. This Court had already become functus officio in entertaining this appeal and if these fact would have been brought to the notice of the Court, the appeal ought to have been dismissed in limine. There was no necessity of applying minds afresh when the appeal had already been dismissed earlier. Realising these facts, we are now left with no option but to recall the subsequent judgment dated 9.8.1988. In our opinion, the Court had every right to correct itself when some new facts are brought before the Court. The Court is to resolve problems and not to create further problems. If the High Court will exercise power under its writ jurisdiction, then there would be no end of these things. To make it clear, suppose a regular appeal has been dismissed by a Bench of this Court and subsequently some body files another appeal suppressing this fact and the Court has no knowledge about the result of the regular appeal, the Court may pass some contradictory judgment which may create problem in the society. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this Court should not exercise power under its writ jurisdiction in the ends of justice so far as the facts and circumstances of this case are concerned. Judgment having been passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction regular appeal in the year 1985 cannot beset aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and subsequent judgment be implemented. 12. Before parting with this order, we can indicate here that the subsequent judgment was passed by my learned brother B. N. Agrawal, J. and N. S. Rao, J. at Ranchi Bench but since N. S. Rao, J. is holding Court at Ranchi and B. N, Agrawal, J. is holding Court at Patna, therefore, by order of Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Case was placed before this Bench of which B. N. Agrawal, J. is a member. 13. After hearing Mr. Prasad at length and the State counsel, we recall the judgment of acquittal dated 9.8.1988 and dismiss this appeal. 14. 13. After hearing Mr. Prasad at length and the State counsel, we recall the judgment of acquittal dated 9.8.1988 and dismiss this appeal. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent to remit it to the appellants.