The acquittal in a complaint case without a trial does not bar a subsequent trial for a different offence on the same facts, as per the interpretation of section 300 Cr PC.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the quashing of FIR 616/2015 dated 09.07.2015 registered u/s 420/406/34 IPC at PS Vivek Vihar. The premise on which the said prayer is made is that on the same facts, respondent no.2/complainant had preferred a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which has been dismissed in default for want of prosecution on 20.08.2015 by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner has placed reliance on section 256 Cr PC to submit that the dismissal of the said complaint tantamounts to acquittal of the accused. The further submission is that since the petitioner/accused stands acquitted in the said complaint – which was premised on the same facts on the basis of which the FIR in question has been registered, by force of section 300 Cr PC the petitioner cannot be tried again in the aforesaid police case FIR registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 616/2015.

2. Section 300(1) Cr PC is relevant for the present purpose and the same reads as follows:

“300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.

1. A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub- section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub- section (2) thereof”.

3. The submission of the petitioner is that, since “on the same facts”, the two offences were alleged against the petitioner, and the petitioner stands acquitted in respect of the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, he cannot be charged and tried for the offence u/s 420/406/34 IPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorntla Venkateswara Rao & Anr., rendered by a bench of two learned Judges of the Supreme Court on 01.02.2011 in Crl A No.1160/2006. Since the said judgment is contained in a short order, I consider it appropriate to set it out, insofar as it is relevant:

“Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was already convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and hence he could not be again tried or punished on the same facts under Section 420 or any other provision of IPC or any other statute. We find force in this submission. It may be noticed that there is a difference between the language used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.. Article 20(2) states:

“no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”

On the other hand, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. States: “300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same office__ (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under subsection (1) of section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.”

Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once', Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts.

In the present case, although the offences are different but the facts are the same. Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies. C