2013 Supreme(SC) 1152

Supreme Court of India
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD & M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Others – Appellants
Versus
Bhagwan Das Agrawal & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2118 of 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8402 of 2011) with Criminal Appeal No. 2119 of 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2180 of 2012)
Decided On : 17-12-2013

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 186 and 482—Explosives Act, 1884— Sections 5/9B and 9C—Place of enquiry/trial—Sine qua non for application of this provision is that cases instituted in different courts are in respect of same offence arising out of same occurrence and that same transaction and that parties are same—If these conditions are satisfied then subsequent proceeding has to be discontinued—However, a person convicted for any offence may be afterwards tried if such act constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted—Same offence would mean that acts and omissions which constitute offence are one and same—Nature and manner of offences committed by accused persons are not identical but are different—Impugned order passed by High Court set aside.

       Held: From bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is manifest that the main object and intention of the Legislature in enacting the provision is to prevent the accused persons from being unnecessarily harassed for the same offences alleged to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of more than one courts. In order to avoid unnecessary harassment of the accused to appear and face trial in more than one courts, necessary direction is to be issued to discontinue the subsequent proceedings in other courts. The provision is based on the principle of convenience and expediency. However, the sine qua non for the application of this provision is that the cases instituted in different courts are in respect of the same offence arising out of the same occurrence and that the same transaction and that the parties are the same. In other words, the persons implicated as an accused in different cases must be the same. If these conditions are satisfied then subsequent proceeding has to be discontinued.

       Chapter XXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the provisions with regard to the enquiries and trials. Section 300 debars the Court from proceeding with the trial in respect of the same offence for which the accused has already been tried and convicted or acquitted. However, a person convicted for any offence may be afterwards tried if such act constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted. This Court elaborately dealt with the provisions contained in Section 300 Cr.P.C. in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC page 655.

       In the instant case, as noticed above, the nature and manner of offences committed by the accused persons are not identical but are different, for example, in respect of FIR Crime No.130 of 2010 the accused persons in connivance with respondent No.1 delivered 103 trucks of explosives to the Magazines of M/s. Ajay Explosives which belonged to Shiv Charan Heda and 60 trucks of explosives to M/s. B.M. Traders which belonged to Deepa Heda. It was alleged that the Magazines of M/s. Ganesh Explosives and M/s. Sangam Explosives were not operational since many years and with the forged documentation in the name of the said firms the explosives were purchased by M/s. Ajay Explosives and M/s. B.M. Traders and subsequently those explosives were sold to some unknown persons. In respect of those FIRs, one accused, a resident of Nepal, was arrested and from whose custody 498 non electronic detonators were recovered. In respect of another FIR, during investigation, it has come on the record that those explosives were sold for terrorist activities.

       Offence means any act or omission made punishable by law. The fountain head of all the three cases may be at Dholpur from where truck loaded with explosives moved to different destinations but from that it cannot be said that the acts and omissions which constitute the offence are the same. Same offence, in our opinion, would mean that acts and omissions which constitute the offence are one and the same. Except the allegation that the explosives were loaded at Dholpur, the mode and manner in which the offence was committed at different places are not the same. As such, in our opinion, the provision of Section 186 of the Code is not attracted in the facts of the present case. Hence, the High court erred in passing the impugned order.

       In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the High Court is to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan is allowed and the appeal preferred by the accused stands disposed of.

       Result: Appeals partly allowed.