1. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in CC No.1088/2012of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, III, Thrissur, for offences punishable under sections 279,338 and 304(A) IPC.

2. According to the prosecution, on 21/2/2012, while the accused was driving his car, it hit the victim, who, sustained serious injuries. He was rushed to the hospital and was treated there. Crime No.282/2012 was registered by Mannuthy police for offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. After investigation, final report was laid on 31/3/2012. The case was taken cognizance as C.C No.580/2012. Pursuant to the summons issued, the petitioner herein appeared, charge was read over and he pleaded guilty on 25/6/2012. The court sentenced him with fine for offences punishable under sections 279,337 and 338 IPC. It is stated that fine was remitted by him on the same day. Subsequently, the victim died, allegedly due to the injuries that he had sustained in the accident. Hence, in Crime No.282/2012, further report was filed adding section 304(A) IPC and informing the court about the further investigation. After completion of investigation, final report was laid for offences punishable under sections 279,338 & section 304(A) of IPC. Cognizance was taken and the case is now pending as CC No.1088/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, III, and Thrissur. The petitioner has approached this Court to quash Annexure A-10 final report.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Examined the records.

4. Mr.Rohith, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who exhaustively referred to the judicial precedents on the legal issues involved, contended that the petitioner herein, who was found guilty of offences punishable under sections 279,337,338 IPC and sentenced, cannot be tried for the same offences even with the aid of newly added offence under section 304A IPC. It was contended that, such a prosecution was hit by section 300 Cr.P.C., read with Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. It was contended by the learned counsel that, basis of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution was the principle of autrefois convict, or “double jeopardy”, the root of which was to be found in the well established rule of the common Law that, where a person has been convicted for an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction is a bar to all further proceedings for the same offence. The learned counsel contended that the maxim Nemo Debet Bis Puniri Pro Uno Delicto (no one can be punished twice for the same offence) is applicable to the facts of this case. It was further contended on facts that, the death of the victim did not occur as a consequence of the injury that he had sustained in the accident.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the prosecuting agency cannot initiate further prosecution contrary to the general principle of trial and the principle of double Jeopardy laid down in S.A.Venkatarman v. Union of India (AIR 1954 SC375), Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay(AIR 1953 SC325). State of Bombay v. S.L.Apte (AIR 1961 SC 578), LeoRoy Frey v. The Superintendent District Jail, Amritsar ( 1958SCR 822) and Monica Bedi v. State of A.P. (2011 (1) SCC284).

6. The post mortem report reveals that the victim had died of Multpile organ damage. At the time of inquest, the witnesses have mentioned that the injured died of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 21/2/2012. Annexure-A10 is the final report submitted by the police alleging that the death was consequent to the injury sustained in the accident. The wound certificate indicated that, the victim had sustained fracture of right pelvis and a lacerated wound on the occipital scalp. The prosecution alleged that the injuries that the victim had sustained consequent to the road transport accident was the cause of his death and the present offence alleged against the accused und