The principle of double jeopardy prohibits subjecting a person to a second trial for the same offense after conviction or acquittal.

1. The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.249 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode. The petitioner/accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings, pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode.

2. Mr.Sivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he was the manager of M/s. Pioneer Mills, a private limited company, situated at R.N.Pudur, Bhavani Main Road, Erode, at the relevant point of time. On 09.08.2005 at about 7.30 p.m, when the employees were working in the factory, a boiler in the factory got burst causing injuries to the workers, due to which, one injured died and another was admitted in the hospital. A case was registered against the petitioner/accused under Sections 287, 338 and 304 (A) IPC. The learned counsel further contended that on the aforesaid occurrence, similar criminal proceeding was initiated in C.C.No.74 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence, punishable under Sections 41, Rule 61(R) read with Section 92 of Factories Act. The said case ended in conviction, whereby a fine of Rs.25,000/-was imposed and in default, the petitioner/accused was directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 months, as per the Judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, dated 112. 2005 and the petitioner paid the fine amount, imposed by the court.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the case in C.C.No.249 of 2006 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode is also a criminal case, based on the very same occurrence that had taken place on 09.08.2005 at 7.30 p.m in the aforesaid premises, on account of the burst of the boiler and therefore, as per Article 22 of the Constitution of India, it is to be construed as double jeopardy, which is prohibited under Law.

4. Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that both the criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, based on he same occurrence, that had taken place on 09.08.2005 at 7.30 p.m in the premises of M/s. Pioneer Mills, a private limited company. As contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the charges framed in the earlier case in C.C.No.74 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Erode is for offence under Sections 41, Rule 61(R) read with Section 92 of Factories Act. The charges framed in the present case in C.C.No.249 of 2006 is under Sections 287, 338 and 304 (A) IPC and both cases are based on the same occurrence and hence, the alleged offences could have been tried in the same criminal court. However, after the trial, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode has convicted the accused, as per his Judgment, whereas the other case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode.

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the second case pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, after the disposal of the earlier case is only a double jeopardy and not maintainable.

6. It is not in dispute that a departmental proceedings and a criminal case, both can go simultaneously. Similarly, in case of the charges relating to different occurrence, one after another, the respondent can maintain both the cases, without any legal bar. Admittedly, in the instant case, the occurrence had taken place on 09.08.2005 at 7.30 p.m on account of the burst of the boiler, that was installed in the factory and that was the basis for filing the cases, one before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in C.C.No.74 of 2005 and the other case in C.C.No.249 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode. Had the present case was transferred to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, both could have been tried together, however, no steps were taken by the respondent, for simu