The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between charges triable by different courts and the application of the doctrine of double jeopardy in determining whether the petitioner was facing trial for the same offense.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding as well as order taking cognizance dated 06.01.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Namkum P.S. Case No. 04/07, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 48/07, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that patrolling party on 06.01.2007 received a secret information that one Sandeep Pradhan @ Thapa (since acquittal) disclosed the fact as to how the murder of Surendra Rai took place at Saki Bar Restaurant. After information, the informant went Saki Bar Restaurant with police party and thereafter they went near Dari Kuana and arrested three persons i.e. two accused persons and one another namely Rajesh Kumar, whose case has been split up later on. On search from the person of Rajesh Kumar, on 9 mm pistol with six live cartridges were recovered whereas from the possession and person of Sujeet Kumar, one hand grenade was recovered from his pocket and one live cartridge of 9 mm and three mobile SIM, whereas from the person and possession of Gautam Kumar @ Pachu, a mobile and some paper regarding tender was recovered. The articles were recovered in presence of two independent witnesses.

4. Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was investigated by the police and charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 25(1)(b), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act on 28.03.2007 keeping investigation pending under Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act. He submits that after submission of the charge-sheet, the case was proceeded and the petitioner was convicted. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 127/12 and vide judgment and order dated 01.06.2012, the petitioner has been acquitted. He further submits that supplementary charge-sheet under Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act has been submitted on 26.12.2008. He submits that thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance calling upon the petitioner to face trial. He submits that this is a double jeopardy. He heavily relied upon Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in Manoj Sah @ Manoj Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 2009 (0) Supreme (Pat) 16. He submits that in that view of the matter, entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III appearing for the State submits that first charge was triable by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner and in appeal, the petitioner has been acquitted. He submits that so far as Explosive Substance Act is concerned, the investigation was conducted and supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted and in that view of the matter, the said case is required to be tried by the learned Sessions Judge and that is why there is distinction particularly considering sub-section (4) of Section 300 Cr.P.C. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2012) 7 SCC 621.

6. Paragraphs 15 and 23 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below:

“15. The Constitution Bench of this Court in S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 375 : 1954 Cri. L.J. 993 explained the scope of doctrine of double jeopardy, observing that in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in respect of the same offence. The words “prosecuted” and “punished” are to be taken not distributively so as to mean prosecuted or punished. Both the factors must coexist in order that the operation of the clause may be attracted.

23. This Court has time and again explained the principle of issue