Procedure where Judges of Court of Appeal are equally divided
Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with procedure where Judges of Court of Appeal are equally divided. 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 The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
Section 392, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 433 Procedure where Judges of Court of appeal are equally divided Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case involving rape followed by murder of a defenseless widow, combined with robbery, where the convict is a former police official with a history of seven prior convictions spanning multiple serious crimes, escape from judicial custody, commission of another crime within days of the present crime, and demonstrated lack of reformation potential and future dangerousness to society, the cumulative aggravating circumstances satisfy the 'rarest of rare' test established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and justify capital punishment as the appropriate sentence. The young age of the offender, non-premeditation, or leaving a child victim alive do not constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh these grave aggravating factors. Furthermore, Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. does not mandate a separate hearing date on sentence if the accused has been adequately heard on the question of sentence by the trial court and appellate courts.
On this section: Procedure for hearing by third judge when Division Bench is split on opinion; third judge agreed with majority view on 'rarest of rare' determination
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… that the Appellant is not guilty of the commission of offence under section 302 of the IPC, has held him guilty for the offence under section 304, Part-I of the IPC and accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. The matter is thus placed before me as provided under sections 370 and 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per the order of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice. 2. Facts as are necessary run as under:- The Appellant and the deceased on the relevant date and time were returning to the house of the deceased. They had taken liquor from the village beforehand. At one place near the …
Questions about Section 392
What have the courts held on Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka (03 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Procedure for hearing by third judge when Division Bench is split on opinion; third judge agreed with majority view on 'rarest of rare' determination.
How do I find court cases under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 392, section 392 CRPC, section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka (03 Oct 2016).
What should I read with Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 433 (Procedure where Judges of Court of appeal are equally divided), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 392, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.