Acquittal under Section 247 Cr. P. C. is an acquittal after the trial has commenced and therefore comes within the meaning of Section 403 Cr. P. C. A Magistrate cannot ignore a valid order of acquittal passed by him and proceed with the case.

This is an application under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 107 of 1958, Pending before the S. D. M., Thoubal.

2. The facts leading to this application are briefly thus : The first respondent herein filed a complaint before the District Magistrate on 18-10-58 against the 3 petitioners and two others under sections 143/147/447/506 I. P. C. stating that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing criminal trespass on the ingkhol under patta No. 100/212-Kh. and that they trespassed and ploughed the land by force. The case was taken on file and transferred to the S. D. M., Thoubal for trial. One of the accused was absconding and the Magistrate proceeded against the remaining 4 including the petitioners under Sec. 447 I. P. C. On 18 4-1959, the Magistrate explained the Particulars of the offence to the accused as required under section 242 Cr. P. C. in summons cases and the accused pleaded not guilty.

He then proceeded to examine two P. Ws. and adjourned the case to 16-5-1959 for the examination of further P. Ws. P. W. 1 the complainant in the course of his evidence had admitted that the ingkhol in question originally belonged to the petitioner Tona Singh as his paternal property, that P. W. 1 had purchased it from him under a sale deed, that Tona Singh had filed a suit against P. W. 1 in respect of the said sale deed, that the suit was decreed ultimately in favour of the said Tona Singh and that Tona Singh had a dwelling house in the disputed land.

In the face of such admission by P. W. 1, the complaint of criminal trespass under Sec. 447 I. P. C. against the accused Persons became considerably weak. It was in this situation that on 16-5-59, the complainant absented himself while the accused were all present with their counsel. Thereupon, the Magistrate passed an order acquitting all the accused under section 247 Cr. P. C. for default of the complainant remarking that it appeared to him that the complainant did not take any interest in his case.

3. On 25-5-59, the complainant appeared before the Magistrate and filed a petition for revival of the criminal case stating that he was under the bona fide impression that the case was posted to that date and that he had come to learn that the case was struck off on 16-5-59, due to his absence. On this application, the Magistrate passed an order on 25-5-59, that he was satisfied from a chit Produced by the complainant said to have been given by the Magistrate's Bench clerk in which the date of hearing was mentioned as 25-5-59 and also from the Bench clerk's admission that the chit was in his handwriting that the Bench Clerk through a bona fide mistake had given a wrong date to the complainant and further that the order of acquittal passed under such circumstances in the absence of the complainant due to the wrong date given to him can be ignored and the case can be taken up again. He therefore ignored the order of acquittal passed on 16-5-59 and revived the case and issued summons to the accused persons on the revived case. It is against the said order that the present petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings.

4. It was urged for the petitioners that the revival of the criminal case after the acquittal of the accused Persons under Sec. 247 Cr. P. C. clearly violated the mandatory provisions of Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution and of Sec. 403, Cr. P. C.

5. The question under Article 20(2) of the Constitution can be easily disposed of. What Article 20(2) says is that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This means that if a person is prosecuted and punished once for an offence he cannot be prosecuted and punished again for the same offence. This does not prohibit proceedings against a person for an offence when he has been Prosecuted and acquitted previously for the said offence. In other words, the principle of autrefo