Judgement

MUDHOLKAR, J.: The only point which has been urged in this appeal by certificate from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta is whether the trial and conviction of the appellant for an offence under S. 409, Indian Penal Code were barred by the provisions of S. 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

2. The facts which are not in dispute are these:

The appellant was tried for an offence under S. 409, I. P. C. by Mr. T. Bhattacharjee, Judge, Birbhum Special Court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. His conviction was maintained in appeal, by the High Court but the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. One of the points urged before the High Court was that upon the same facts and with respect to the same offence the appellant was tried earlier by Mr. N. C. Ganguly, Judge, Birbhum Special Court and acquitted thereof. He could, therefore, not have been tried over again in respect of that offence and consequently his conviction and sentence are illegal.

3. What actually happened was this. The appellant who was a shed clerk at Sainthia Railway Station is alleged to have committed criminal breach