The court ruled that distinct offences can arise from the same facts, and double jeopardy does not prohibit subsequent prosecutions unless the offences are identical in all respects.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned JMFC, Dharampur in Criminal Case No.323/2014 vide Exh.:11 dated 23.08.2016 and also to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Second Ad-hoc Additional and Sessions Judge, Dharampur in Criminal Application No.92/2016 Revision dated 31.01.2017 and quash and set aside entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.323/2014 pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Dharampur.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 The petitioner came to be arrested with respect to one complaint registered with Dharampur Police Station vide Complaint No.2/2013 for the offence under Section 124 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT . The brief fact of that complaint was that during regular police patrolling, Police Officer received confidential information that the petitioner was doing business of illegal selling of petrol, diesel and kerosene without requisite permission. On the basis of the said confidential information, two panch-witnesses were called and the premises of the petitioner were raided. During the raid, 335 liters of diesel, 160 liters of petrol and 80 liters of kerosene was confiscated which amounted to Rs.31,495/- and the petitioner was arrested under the offence of Section 124 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT . The petitioner was chargesheeted and he had accepted the charge of Section 124 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT in Criminal Case No.351/2013.

2.2 The petitioner was convicted and a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed on him and the same was paid.

2.3 That subsequently, another FIR against the present petitioner came to be filed with respect to the same raid which was conducted on 15.03.2013. The second FIR was registered as C.R.No.II-3062/2013 under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short “the Act”). On completion of investigation, the petitioner was chargesheeted and Criminal Case No.323/2014 was registered against the present petitioner. Pending the trial, the petitioner had given an application vide Exh.:11 to drop the proceedings against the present petitioner as according to the petitioner, the second FIR under Essential Commodities Act is in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 3 00 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said application came to be rejected and the petitioner had preferred a revision application. The said revision application was also rejected.

2.4 Hence, present petition.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Rushabh Shah appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the concurrent findings arrived at by both the learned courts below would mainly argue that for the same fact, the prosecution has registered two different offences. In the first offence, the accused upon admission, had been convicted and that conviction was in force, and yet another offence on the same fact was registered as Criminal Case No. 323 of 2014 and again, the petitioner was sought to be prosecuted for the same facts. He would further submit that the principle of double jeopardy as well as law enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution of India so also provisions of section 300 (1) of the CRPC is attracted in the present case.

3.1 Highlighting the facts of the case, learned advocate Mr. Shah would submit that on 15th March 2015, the police has raided the premises of the accused person and found illegal possession