IMPORTANT POINT
Acquittal in one jurisdiction does not bar prosecution in another for distinct offences under Section 300 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.08.2023 passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA cases), Bengaluru, in Special Case No. 378/2021. Accused No. 21 filed an application under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from the case. Since the Special Court dismissed his application by the order challenged in this petition, he has filed this writ petition.

2. The facts may be briefly stated as below:

Based on the credible information, an FIR in Crime No. 384/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 121A, 120B, 121, 122, 379, 153B and 307 IPC, Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act and Sections 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was registered at Basaveshwara Nagar police station, Bengaluru, on 29.08.2012. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, investigation was handed over to the National Investigation Agency by order of the Government of India dated 16.11.2012. FIR was registered by the National Investigating Agency in RC 04/2012/NIA/HYD. Subsequently, another FIR was registered by NIA at Delhi against the petitioner and other accused persons. The petitioner herein and other accused faced trial in S.C. No. 23 of 2016 at NIA Special Court, Delhi. The petitioner was acquitted of the offences charged against him by Delhi court. Therefore, he made an application before the Special Court at Bengaluru under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. stating that he faced trial at Delhi court on certain facts and circumstances which are same in the case at Bengaluru, and in this view, he cannot be tried again on the same set of facts and circumstances in view of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. This application having stood dismissed, the petitioner is before this court.

3. We have heard Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned senior counsel for Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/NIA.

4. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal Ratilal Mehta and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, (1980) 1 SCC 121, Sri Kiran Javali argued that the petitioner faced trial for the offences under sections 17, 18, 18B and 20 of UAP Act, sections 467 and 471 of IPC and section 12(1)(b) of Indian Passport Act in the Sessions Court at Delhi and has been acquitted of those offences. He is now facing trial at Bengaluru in Special Case No. 378/2021. The facts in both the cases are identical and the witnesses are also same. The petitioner is accused No. 21 in the case before the Bengaluru court. In view of the petitioner’s acquittal by the Delhi court, if he is made to face trial at Bengaluru court, it is nothing but prosecuting him twice on the same set of facts which is not permitted according to section 300 of Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution. Application under section 300 of Cr.P.C. was made before the Special Court in Bengaluru and his application was dismissed giving reasons that two cases are not same and they relate to two different incidents. This finding of the Special Court is erroneous and therefore the said order is to be set aside and the petitioner needs to be discharged of the offences in connection with which he is facing trial.

5. Sri P. Prasanna Kumar on the other hand while arguing for sustenance of the impugned order submitted that FIR was registered suo-motu by Basaveshwaranagar police for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 153A, 153B, 307 and 379 IPC, sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act and sections 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 20 of UAP Act. The said FIR was registered on the accusations that certain persons were part of terrorist gang and being inspired by the activities and ideology of banned terrorist organization Lashqar-e-Taiba (‘LeT’ for short), they planned to kill Hindu leaders and government officials. Having regard to the gravity of the offences the Central Government handed over investigat