SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 914

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
G. Ratna Sagar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 9900 of 2018
Decided On : 30-09-2022

The principle of double jeopardy, enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, bars the prosecution from trying a person again for the same offences after they have been acquitted or convicted in a previous case.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PETITION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - DOUBLE JEOPARDY - SAME OFFENCES - SAME FACTS - ISSUE ESTOPPEL - AUTREFOIS ACQUIT - AUTREFOIS CONVICT - ARTICLE 20(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SECTION 300 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, accused in a criminal case, filed a petition to quash the proceedings against them, arguing that they had already been tried and acquitted of the same offences in a previous case. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, officials of the Tobacco Board, had conspired with certain growers to obtain loans from multiple banks using forged documents and false information.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charges against the petitioners in the present case were the same as those in the previous case, and that the evidence and witnesses would be the same. The court held that the principle of double jeopardy, enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, barred the prosecution from trying the petitioners again for the same offences.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners could be tried again for the same offences after being acquitted in a previous case. 2. Whether the principle of double jeopardy applied in this case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support its decision. In State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte, the court held that two offences are not the same if their ingredients are different, even if the allegations of facts in the two complaints are substantially similar. In Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao, the court held that Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution and bars a person from being tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts. In State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, the court held that separate trials are permissible for different offences committed in continuation of a conspiracy, but that each offence must be punished separately and cannot be tried again.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in the present case, holding that they could not be tried again for the same offences after being acquitted in the previous case.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the Accused Nos.1, 2 , 13 and 14 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam.

2. The allegations, in brief, in the charge sheet may be stated as follows:

Tobacco Board was constituted by the Government of India under an Act of Parliament to bring out an all round development of the tobacco industry. A1/the petitioner No.1 was the Auction Superintendent, A2/the petitioner No.2 was the Assistant Manager, Accounts, A13 and A14/petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were Field Officers at Auction Platform 17, Tobacco Board, Devarapalli. A1 worked from 2004 to June, 2006 and A2, A13 and A14 worked from August, 2005 to February, 2007. As per the guidelines and Circular Orders for registration of Virginia Tobacco Growers and Barn operators, a person who wanted to register himself as tobacco grower, has to submit an application in the prescribed proforma giving the details of the land held by him and number of the authorized barns possessed by him. That application has to be processed by Field Officer. After making necessary verification, the Auction Superintendent approves the registration of grower. Thereafter he will send the file to the Assistant Manager (Accounts) for accepting the fee and to ensure that the grower of tobacco had no outstanding dues with any bank or any other institution including the Tobacco Board. Further as per the procedure and guidelines of the Board, the growers have to renew their registration every year by paying the prescribed fee. If once registration is completed, the grower will be issued with Tobacco Grower's Pass Book (TGPB), wherein the particulars of the growers, name of the bank from which the grower intends to take loan and the bank with which he is having account, number of barns he owned or taken on lease, the area of land cultivated etc are noted.

A3 to A9 moved applications for registration as growers of tobacco and also some of them for construction of barns showing that they are owners of different extents of land in different survey numbers though they did not possess at all or owned only small extent of land than what they have shown in their applications. The petitioners herein who were concerned in processing such applications as well as recommending and registering the applicants as growers of tobacco and possessors of barns, accepted the said applications, processed them and registered the applicants in the register maintained. They have recommended for the crop loans etc., A4 to A9 and some of the growers of tobacco along with other accused entered into conspiracy and as such wrong entries were made in the TGPBs as if they borrowed loan from a bank wherefrom they have not borrowed or recommended to a bank for loan which is other than the bank that sanctioned the loan earlier and it is even before full repayment is made. The details of loans borrowed etc., are given in detail in the charge sheet, which may not be necessary to state here.

Thus, for the conspiracy the petitioners herein and other accused have entered in committing offences in fabricating documents, forging the signatures, using forged documents as genuine, falsification of accounts and also cheating, the CBI filed the charge sheet against the petitioners herein and other nine (9) accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 477A IPC and under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.

4. On reliable information received during the year 2005, it is found that A3 approached the Tobacco Board Auction Platform, Devarapalli and got issued with Tobacco Board Growers Registration (TBGRs). Information further revealed that Tobacco Board supplies q

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top