Counsel for the appellants contended first that the third c learned Judge under section 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code could only deal with the differences between the two learned Judges and not with the whole case. The same contention had been advanced before Mehta, J. in the High Court who rightly held that under scetion 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code the· whole case was to be dealt with by him. This Court in Babu and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh(') held that it was for the D third learned Judge to decide on what points the arguments would be heard and therefore he was free to resolve the differences' as he thought fit. Mehta, J. here dealt with the wilole case. Sectiop 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code states "that W]len the· Judges comprising the Court of Appeal are equally divided in opinion, the case with their opinion t)Weon, shall be laid.before· E another Judge of the same Court ana such Judge, after such hearing., i.f any, as he thinks fit, shall deliver his opinion, and the judgment or order shall follow such opinion". Two things are noticeable; first, that the case shall be Ia"id before another Judge, and, secondly, the judgment and order will follow the opinion of the third learned Judge. It is, therefore, manifest F that the third learned Judge can or will deal with_the whole_ case.
