The main legal point established is that the principle of double jeopardy does not apply when the accused is tried separately for distinct offences under different acts, even if the offences are related to the same incident.

1. This petition is for quashrnent of criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tilda, in Climinal Case No.60/2008.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused copy of charge sheet, copy of order dated 31-7-2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tilda relating to dismissal of application for discharge of the accused, copy of order dated 22-11-2008 passed by the Special Judge & 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 193/2008 and copies of other documents.

3. Prosecution case in nutshell is that the applicant is occupier of Arsh Iron & Steel Private Limited situated at Sarora, Tehsil Tilda, Distt. Raipur. One Bablu Tiwari (since deceased) who was employee of the applicant in the said factory sustained burn injuries on 25-12-2006 and as a result of the burn injuries received in the factory premises while working in the factory, Bablu Tiwari died on 30-12-2006. Prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 7 A (2) (c) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 73 of the Chhattisgarh Factory Rules, 1962 and Section 88 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rules 108 (1) & 108 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Factory Rules, 1962 was launched against the applicant. On his admission the applicant was convicted & sentenced to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.L for 40 days by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Labour Court), Raipur in Criminal Case No.62112007.

Subsequently, prosecution for offence punishable under Section 304A of the LP.C was investigated upon and charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tilda. The applicant filed an application for his discharge under Section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') on the ground that the accused/applicant has been convicted by the competent Court under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and subsequent trial for the same offence or on the san1e facts for any other offence is not competent in accordance with Section 300 of the Code. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the trial Court has rejected the application and same was affirmed in criminal revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that according to the case of the prosecution before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Labour Court), the accused has not made proper arrangement and has not taken proper precautions in his factory and as a result of such omission deceased Bablu Tiwari died due to bum injuries which is punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. He further submitted that according to the prosecution the applicant has caused death of the deceased by his negligent act of not taking proper precautions in his factory, both the facts and offence are one and the same but punishable under the provisions of different Acts. Once the applicant has been convicted & sentenced under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 which is a special Act having overriding effect, he is not liable for any trial or punishment for the same facts or same offence under the provisions of different Act and any trial or conviction would be double jeopardy not permissible in accordance with Section 300 of the Code & Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of lnder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Drs.1 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that criminal proceedings in civil dispute is abuse of process of Court and same is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Manipur Administration, Manipur Vs. Thokchom Bira Singh2 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that person cannot be tried again on the same facts. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Ashwini Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of Jharkhand in which the Jharkhand High Court has he