IMPORTANT POINT
In order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution i.e. doctrine of autrefois acquit or Section 300 CrPC or Section 71 IPC or Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the ingredients of the offences in the earlier case as well as in the latter case must be the same and not different. The test to ascertain whether the two offences are the same is not the identity of the allegations but the identity of the ingredients of the offence. Motive for committing the offence cannot be termed as the ingredients of offences to determine the issue. The plea of autrefois acquit is not proved unless it is shown that the judgment of acquittal in the previous charge necessarily involves an acquittal of the latter charge.

JUDGMENT :

Manikumar, J.

Instant writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

“(i) Declare that order dated 21.05.2015 in HRMP No. 1641/2014 (Exhibit-P1) passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, 1st respondent, is illegal, unconstitutional and void;

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing Exhibit-P1 order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the 1st respondent;

(iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing notice dated 31.01.2017 (Exhibit-P4) issued by the 1st respondent;

(iv) Declare that respondent Nos.6 & 7 viz., Secretary, Home Department, Kerala Government Secretariat, Thrivunanthapuram; and the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Kerala Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, are not empowered to implement Exhibit-P1 order without hearing the petitioner and other affected parties;”

2. Facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, petitioner was an officer in the Kerala Police, who retired in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector. He was the first respondent in HRMP No.1641/2014 before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The 2nd respondent herein was the complainant in the said case. The parties are addressed hereafter in accordance with the sequence assigned to them in the Writ Petition.

3. The 2nd respondent has alleged, in the complaint lodged before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, that on 05.02.2014 at 1 p.m., his son Ajsal and his college friends saw the petitioner, who then was an ASI of Kareelakulangara Police Station, in an inebriated state. Petitioner is alleged to have abused Ajsal as well as his friends using filthy words, caught hold of Ajsal's shirt, wrongfully restrained him and slapped him on both the cheeks. When the onlookers questioned his action, the petitioner made a phone call and then, two police officers came in a jeep. Ajsal was caught by the police and thrown into the jeep. Thereafter, he was taken to the police station. Policemen, including the petitioner, assaulted Ajsal. Subsequently, the policemen went on to foist a case, based on a wrong allegation against Ajsal, obstructing the police from discharging their official duty.

4. Petitioner has further stated that pursuant to the above, Crime No.127/2014 on the file of the Kareelakulangara Police Station was registered under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the son of the complainant. He was arrested, later produced before the learned Magistrate, and remanded. On the next day, he was released on bail.

5. Petitioner has further contended that, Ajsal in his complaint, has stated that he was admitted to Government hospital till 18.02.2014. After his discharge, Ajsal filed a complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. It was also mentioned in the complaint that while the 2nd respondent tried to procure a wound certificate, he was told by the Hospital Superintendent that hospital records have been unauthorisedly tampered with.

6. Petitioner has further stated that the 1st respondent Commission, on receipt of the complaint, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha (respondent No.3), to submit a report. In compliance of the said direction, respondent No.4-Circle Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam (respondent No.4), conducted an inquiry and submitted a report to the Commission. The 4th respondent, after due enquiry, found the allegations made by the 2nd respondent as untrue. In his report, the following findings on facts were recorded:

“On 05.02.2014 at 12.30 p.m., petitioner had gone to take a photocopy at a shop near Nangiarkulangara Junction and while returning, he saw many college students belonging to SH college, including Ajsal, the son of the 2nd respondent, coming by road in groups. Petitioner questioned the students, as to whether this is the way students must walk on a National Highway. On hearing this, Ajsal used abusive language on the petit