Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Hari Charan Rajak S/o Late Yamuna Rajak – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 542 of 2023
Decided On : 09-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Gautam Kumar.
For the Respondent: Nehala Sharmin.
IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of double jeopardy applies only when the offences are not distinct and the ingredients of the offences are identical.
Headnote:
Double Jeopardy - Criminal Breach of Trust - Indian Penal Code, Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 477A, 120B - The court discussed the principle of double jeopardy and its applicability to the case, emphasizing that the principle is applicable only in respect of the trial of the same offence where the offences are not distinct and the ingredients of the offences are identical. The court found that the offences in the present case were distinct from those in the previous case, and therefore, the principle of double jeopardy did not apply.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public servant, was accused of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy in misappropriating funds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the principle of double jeopardy did not apply as the offences in the present case were distinct from those in the previous case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the principle of double jeopardy applied to the case, considering the multiple FIRs against the petitioner for similar offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of double jeopardy is applicable only in respect of the trial of the same offence where the offences are not distinct and the ingredients of the offences are identical.
Final Decision: The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed as the court found that the principle of double jeopardy did not apply to the case.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. arising out of Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 151 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No. 406 of 2006 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 477A and 120 B of Indian Penal Code and also the consequential orders and proceedings arising out the said F.I.R. now pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner in capacity of Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Dumka being a public servant has committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, using of forged documents for cheating and criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons including the executive engineer, assistant engineer, junior engineer and the contractor; on the basis of forged bills has misappropriated Rs. 3,37,665/-.
4. Police after investigation of the case has submitted charge sheet inter-alia against the petitioner for committing the said offences but the copy of the charge sheet has not been annexed with this criminal miscellaneous petition.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that altogether six FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner for criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, using of forged documents for the purpose of cheating and other allied offences for six different works in which misappropriation was allegedly caused by the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the co-accused persons have faced trial in one of the case and have been convicted vide judgment dated 22.10.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pakur vide Pakur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 404 of 2006. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the same cause of action six cases have been instituted. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala, 2023 (1) JLJR (SC) 359, paragraph no. 28 of which reads as under:
“28. What is to be noted here is that both these provisions, i.e. Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 20 of the Constitution of India use the term ‘same offence’.
Before dealing with the issue at hand, it is necessary to understand what the term ‘same offence’ means and includes. The term ‘same offence’ in simple language means, where the offences are not distinct and the ingredients of the offences are identical. Where there are two distinct offences made up of different ingredients, the embargo under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, has no application, though the offences may have some overlapping features. The crucial requirement of Article 20 is that the offences are the same and identical in all respects, vide State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the offences involved in this case as well as six different cases are one and the same hence, the continuation of this criminal miscellaneous petition will amount to double jeopardy. Hence, it is submitted that F.I.R. arising out of Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 151 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No. 406 of 2006 and other consequential orders and proceedings arising out the said F.I.R. be quashed.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. arising out of Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 151 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No. 406 of 2006 and other consequential orders and proceedings arising out the said F.I.R. and submits that six FIRs have been registered in connection with six different offences committed on six different date
