Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXIX: Appeals
Section 392: Procedure where Judges of Court of Appeal are equally divided
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
If the Judges of a High Court Bench hearing an appeal are divided, the appeal and their opinions go to another Judge, whose opinion the judgment follows. If any of them so requires, it is reheard by a larger Bench.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
When an appeal under this Chapter is heard by a High Court before a Bench of Judges and they are divided in opinion, the appeal, with their opinions, shall be laid before another Judge of that Court, and that Judge, after such hearing as he thinks fit, shall deliver his opinion, and the judgment or order shall follow that opinion:
Provided that if one of the Judges constituting the Bench, or, where the appeal is laid before another Judge under this section, that Judge, so requires, the appeal shall be re-heard and decided by a larger Bench of Judges.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 392
-
Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar
Whether the High Court erred in confirming the conviction and death sentence passed by trial court against appellant-accused for offences punishable u/ss.302, 376, IPC and s.4, POCSO Act, 2012, despite serious lapses in…
- B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka
- Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Lrs. & Others v. Chandrika & Others
- Laut Kumar Yadav @ Kuri v. State of Utiar Pradesh
- Mayakaur Baldevsingh Sardar and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra
- Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and Ors. v. State of U.P.
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat
- State of UP v. Dan Singh and Ors.
- Bhimrao Anna Ingawale and Others v. State of Maharashtra