Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. :- This appeal by special leave raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of central provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the "Old Code"). The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.

2. One Bobegowda was murdered and in regard to this incident a case was registered at the Police Station on 13th October, 1973 as Crime No. 62 of 1973. The police investigated the case and after the investigation was complete, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Chikmagalur and the case was registered as S. C. No. 2819 of 1973. The learned Magistrate held an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVIII of the old Code and being of the opinion that the respondents should be committed for trial, the learned Magistrate framed a charge against the respondents for having committed an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate then read and explained the charge to the respondents and after giving an opportunity to the respondents to give in a list names of witnesses whom they wished to be summoned to give evidence, the learned Magistrate made an order committing the respondents for trial by the Court of Session, Chickmagalur. This order of committal was made on 15th March, 1974 and in pursuance of it, the records of the case were forwarded to the Court of Session, Chickmagalur where they reached on 23rd March, 1974 and the case was registered as S. S. No. 5 of 1974. The Sessions Judge fixed the trial of the case on 15th July, 1974 but before that date, the Public Prosecutor filed an application on 29th June, 1974 praying for permission to withdraw from the prosecution under Section 494 of the old Code. The learned Sessions Judge by an order passed on the same day accorded permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution and discharged the respondents in respect of the offence charged against them. The State thereafter ordered fresh investigation into the offence and in consequence of such investigation, a new charge-sheet was filed against the respondents and three other accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chickmagalur. Since this charge-sheet was filed after 1st April, 1974 when the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "New Code") had come into force, the learned Magistrate, following the provisions of the New Code, committed the respondents and the other three accused to stand their trial before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur for the same offence. When the case came up for hearing before the Sessions Judge, the respondents made an application contending that by virtue of the Order dated 29th June, 1974 made by the Sessions Judge under Section 494 of the old Code, the respondents had been acquitted and they were, therefore, not liable to be prosecuted again for the same offence in view of Section 300 of the new Code. The Sessions Judge rejected the application, taking the view that the respondents were discharged and not acquitted under the Order dated 29th June, 1974 and, therefore, Sec. 300 of the new Code was not applicable and there was no bar against their fresh prosecution for the same offence. The respondents challenged this Order by preferring a revision application to the High Court. This revision application was allowed and the High Court* held that though the Order passed by the Session Judge directed that the respondents be discharged, the legal effect of this Order was to bring about the acquittal of the respondents since the withdrawal from the prosecution was made after the charge had been framed and the respondents having been acquitted under that Order, the bar of Section 300 of the new Code was attracted and the respondents were not liable to be prosecuted again for the same offence. This order made