An acquittal by a Court of competent jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent trial for the same offence, even if the Court of acquittal is subsequently held to be not of competent jurisdiction.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - S. 403 - Acquittal by Court of competent jurisdiction - Effect of - Subsequent decision of High Court holding that Court of acquittal was not of competent jurisdiction - Effect of - Whether accused can plead S. 403 in subsequent proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was acquitted by a Special Judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949. The High Court of Calcutta, however, held that the Act was ultra vires and set aside the acquittal. The appellant was then tried again and convicted. He appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the acquittal by the Special Judge was an acquittal by a Court of competent jurisdiction and that the subsequent decision of the High Court holding that the Court of acquittal was not of competent jurisdiction did not affect the validity of the acquittal. The Court further held that the appellant could plead S. 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the subsequent proceedings and that he could not be tried again for the same offence.
Issues: Whether the acquittal by the Special Judge was an acquittal by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the Special Judge was a Court of competent jurisdiction because it was a Court constituted under a valid law. The Court further held that the subsequent decision of the High Court holding that the Act was ultra vires did not affect the validity of the acquittal because the decision was not binding on the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and quashed the proceedings against the appellant.

Judgment

KAPUR, J. : (with him JAFER IMAM AND WANCHOO, JJ.) - This appeal by special leave raises a question of the application of S. 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The circumstances in which this question arises are these: A complaint was filed against one S. K. Bose and the appellant under Ss. 120-B, 409, Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947) in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Darjeeling. Against the appellant the complaint was instituted on 2-3-1950. As the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts Act) West Bengal Act 21 of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on 23-6-1949, the case was allotted to the Special Judge at Alipore Mr. S. C. Dutt Gupta who, on 11-7-1951, found S. K. Bose guilty but acquitted the appellant. S. K. Bose took an appeal to the High Court at Calcutta.

2. In another case, J. K. Gupta v. State of West Bengal, 56 Cal WN 701 a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that S. 4(1) of the Act was ultra vires. Following this judgment a Division Bench of that Court (Trevor Harries C. J. and S. R. Das Gupta J.) passed the following order in S. K. Bose s appeal :-

"The appeal must, therefore, be allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant must be regarded as an undertrial prisoner awaiting retrial, if Government so decides. He will continue on the same bail until such retrial."

3. On 9-4-1952, the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts (Amending) Ordinance 1952 (West Bengal Ordn. 8 of 1952) came into force and was replaced by West Bengal Act XII of 1952 on 30-7-1952. By a Notification No. 20447J. Mr. J. C. Lodh was appointed as the Special Judge at Alipore and on 26-5-1952 a petition of complaint was filed against both the appellant and S. K. Bose. It was stated therein that the High Court had held that allotment of the case to the previous Special Court and all proceedings thereafter were invalid and "all such cases have been directed to be retried according to law" and prayed for cognizance to be taken of the offences which the appellant and S. K. Bose were accused of. It may be pointed out that as far as the appellant was concerned the High Court had given no such direction.

4. The Special Judge then summoned the appellant who on 19-6-1952, pleaded the bar of S. 403, Criminal Procedure Code, basing it on his acquittal by the Special Judge, Mr. S. C. Dutt Gupta. The Special Judge overruled this plea on the ground of want of jurisdiction of the previous Special Judge to try the offences because S. 4(1) of the Act had been declared ultra vires by the High Court. Against this order the appellant moved the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 and under S. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings before the Special Judge. On 22-8-1952. Notification No. 2047S. was superseded by Notification No. 46173J and Mr. J. C. Lodh ceased to have jurisdiction and he passed an order on August 26 that as the Court had no jurisdiction to continue the trial the case be filed and the accused be held undertrial prisoner pending a retrial according to law. The appellant thereupon amended his petition in the High Court. On 19-3-1953, the High Court (Chunder J.) dismissed the application and discharged the rule. It held that as the Act "creating the" Special Judge s Court had been declared ultra vires, the decision of that Court had no binding force and that the High Court "did not discharge the accused persons altogether but directed that they were to be held as undertrial prisoners, leaving it to the Government to decide what further steps the Government would take." Here again there was an error because whatever might be the legal consequence of the order of the High Court is S. K. Bose s appeal there was no specific order as to the appellant.

5. The West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Amending Act (West Bengal Act 12 of 1952) having come into force, by a notification

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1959 Supreme(SC) 187

An acquittal by a Court of competent jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent trial for the same offence, even if the Court of acquittal is subsequently held to be not of competent jurisdiction.

Cases Referred (2)