Once a person has been tried and acquitted for an offence, they cannot be tried again for the same offence or on the same facts, as per the provisions of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioner has challenged the proceedings pending against him in criminal case No. 392/2016 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court').

2. The petition has been filed essentially on the ground that the petitioner cannot be tried for the same offence for which he has once been tried and acquitted. According to the petitioner, such proceedings are not only contrary to Section 300 (1) of the Code but also amount to violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

3. Backdrop facts relevant for the present purposes are that pursuant to receiving information from secret informer on 25.07.2007, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer searched petitioner's shop running by the name of M/s. Gayatri Trading Company and found some misbranded and adulterated ghee stored/stocked in the shop.

4. In furtherance of the inspection so made, an FIR No. 220/2007 dated 26.08.2007 was registered at Police Station Jaisalmer for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 472, 482, 483, 487 and 488 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') so also under Sections 102, 103 & 104 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TMM Act').

5. In relation to the very same search, the food inspector also came into action and instituted a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PFA Act') which was registered as Case No. 117 of 2009 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer.

6. The petitioner faced the trial in this case being case No. 117/2009 and was ultimately acquitted by the trial Court per viam its order dated 10.06.2019.

7. The proceedings in furtherance of the FIR No. 220 dated 26.08.2007 which was filed in relation to the offences under IPC and TMM Act, however, remained pending before the court.

8. At the time of framing of charges, the petitioner raised objection that charges cannot be framed, as he has already been acquitted of the same allegations by virtue of the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the same Court. Petitioner's such contention did not find favour and charges were framed against the petitioner by the trial court per viam its order dated 11.10.2021.

9. Petitioner challenged the order dated 11.10.2021 by way of revision under Section 397 of the Code which was registered as revision petition No. 6/22 in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional Court').

10. During the course of arguments of revision, petitioner's contention was that the proceedings cannot be sustained in the face of the provisions of Section 300 of the Code and reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashok Bhai Kannu Bhai Rawani & ors v. State of Gujrat & ors. (Cri. Misc. Application No. 6991/2014), but the revisional court rejected the contention of the petitioner inter alia observing that the case before Hon'ble the Gujarat High Court was a complaint case whereas, petitioner's case was not a complaint case.

11. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that continuation of proceedings in the present factual backdrop is per se illegal and contrary to the mandate of Section 300 of the Code. Because, for very same incident and search, the impugned FIR was lodged and based on those very facts, a complaint was also filed by the food inspector, which has resulted in acquittal by order dated 10.06.2019.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswar Rao & Anr.; reported in 2011 Cr.L.R. SC 260 to support his argument that for the same set of facts, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted again.

13.