Back
1990 Supreme(Mad) 1034
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JANARTHANAM
Natarajan - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondents
Cri.M.P. No. 7548 of 1987
Decided On : 19 November 1990
SECTION 300, CR.P.C., BARS THE SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION OF AN ACCUSED FOR THE SAME OFFENCE OR FOR ANY OTHER OFFENCE FOR WHICH A DIFFERENT CHARGE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE EARLIER TRIAL, BASED ON THE SAME FACTS.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 300 - SAME OFFENCE - SAME FACTS - BAR TO SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED CANNOT BE CHARGED FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 404 AND 408, I.P.C., INASMUCH AS THE SECOND LIMB OF THE SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 300, CR.P.C. STARES AT THE FACE OF THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY.
Fact of the Case:
THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED WAS TRIED AND ACQUITTED IN A PREVIOUS CRIMINAL CASE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 457 AND 380, I.P.C. SUBSEQUENTLY, HE WAS CHARGED WITH OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 404 AND 408, I.P.C., ARISING FROM THE SAME SET OF FACTS. THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED CHALLENGED THE SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION, ARGUING THAT IT WAS BARRED BY SECTION 300, CR.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION WAS BARRED BY SECTION 300, CR.P.C. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE SECOND LIMB OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 300, CR.P.C. PROHIBITS THE TRIAL OF AN ACCUSED FOR ANY OTHER OFFENCE FOR WHICH A DIFFERENT CHARGE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE EARLIER TRIAL, BASED ON THE SAME FACTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 404 AND 408, I.P.C., COULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN THE EARLIER TRIAL, AS THEY AROSE FROM THE SAME SET OF FACTS. THEREFORE, THE COURT HELD THAT THE SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Issues: WHETHER THE SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION OF THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 404 AND 408, I.P.C., WAS BARRED BY SECTION 300, CR.P.C., GIVEN THAT HE HAD ALREADY BEEN TRIED AND ACQUITTED IN A PREVIOUS CRIMINAL CASE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 457 AND 380, I.P.C., ARISING FROM THE SAME SET OF FACTS.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON SECTION 300, CR.P.C., WHICH PROHIBITS THE SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION OF AN ACCUSED FOR THE SAME OFFENCE OR FOR ANY OTHER OFFENCE FOR WHICH A DIFFERENT CHARGE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE EARLIER TRIAL, BASED ON THE SAME FACTS. THE COURT INTERPRETED THE SECOND LIMB OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 300, CR.P.C., TO MEAN THAT AN ACCUSED CANNOT BE TRIED AGAIN FOR AN OFFENCE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN THE EARLIER TRIAL, EVEN IF THE EARLIER TRIAL WAS FOR A DIFFERENT OFFENCE.
Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE PETITION AND QUASHED THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT CASE.
One M. Mahalingam is a native of Kumbakonam. He claims to be the foster son of one (Tmt) Hemavathi, who died on 11-12-1963, leaving behind her immovable and movable properties. She was stated to have left a registered trust deed dated 31-8-1962 in respect of the management of her immovable properties. She was also stated to have executed a will dated 6-10-1963 in respect of her movable properties. The said foster son is the sole legatee the abovesaid will.
2. On 2-8-1982 the said Mahalingam gave a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Kumbakonam against one Natarajan and two others, which was in turn, forwarded to the Kumbakonam Police Station. South under S. 156(3), Crl.P.C. for further action. On receipt of the complaint, which was registered in Crime No. 283/82, investigation was taken up and after completing the formalities of the investigation, a final report under S. 173(2), Cri.P.C. had been laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam for the alleged offences under Ss. 457 and 380, I.P.C. against one Natarajan and two others.
3. The case was taken on file as C.C. No. 671 of 1982 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and subsequently it was transferred to the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, who in turn, took it on his file as C.C. No. 86 of 1983. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, on consideration of the materials placed before him, acquitted all the three accused by his order dated 7-2-1984.
4. In respect of the same occurrence, the said Mahalingam gave a complaint before the Superintendent of Police. Thanjavur West district on 13-11-1986 for alleged offences under Ss. 404 and 408, I.P.C. against Natarajan alone (the first accused in the previous complaint - the petitioner herein). The Superintendent of Police, in turn forwarded the complaint to the District Crime Branch for investigation. A case was in fact registered in Crime No. 30/6. After completing the investigation, a final report under S. 173(2), Cri.P.C. was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, against the said Natarajan for the alleged offences under Ss. 404 and 408. I.P.C., which was taken on file as C.C. No. 319 of 1987.
5. The accused, on receipt of process, entered his appearance and engaged a counsel of his choice. Charges had been framed and at that stage, the petitioner-accused had come forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
6. The sole and lone ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that S. 300, Cri.P.C. will operate as a bar for the present prosecution initiated against him. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however repeal such a submission.
7. There is no pale of controversy that the facts which impelled the said Mahalingam to initiate earlier criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused and two others are exactly the same for the initiation of criminal proceedings in the instant case. The moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether it is legally permissible to initiate criminal proceedings, in the instant case, on the same set of facts as arose in the previous criminal proceedings, on the face of the salient provisions adumbrated under S. 300. Cri.P.C.
8. Sub-section (1) of S. 300, Cri.P.C., which is relevant for our purpose, may be extracted for better appreciation of the case and it runs as follows :-
"300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence :- (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-sec. (1) of S. 221, or for which he migh
