Acquittal in a previous trial with a direction for re-investigation is not an acquittal in force, and the protection under Section 300 Cr.P.C. does not apply.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the charge sheet / final report filed by the first respondent in Special S.C.No.42 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Court for the trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai and quash the same and subsequently quash the entire proceedings in Special S.C.No.42 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Court for the trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai.)

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC., by the accused, by name, Manikandan.

2. According to the petitioner, the High Court in the Referred Trial No.2 of 2018 acquitted him vide judgment dated 24.07.2018 from all the charges levelled against him and he was directed to be set at liberty forthwith. While so, the de nova investigation by the CBI conducted pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench in the referred trial order, is non-est in law, attracts the principles of double jeopardy, violates the rights enshrined under Article 20(ii) of the Constitution and Section 300 of Cr.P.C.

3. The petitioner was initially tried before the Special Court under POCSO Act in S.C. No.102 of 2015 for charges under Sections 364(A) IPC and 302 IPC. He was found guilty of abducting a four year old girl child and causing her death. The trial Court, after examining the witnesses, convicted him for life for the offence under Section 364(A) IPC and imposed death sentence for offence under Section 302 IPC. As statute requires, the judgment was referred to Division Bench of this Court for confirmation of the death sentence in Referred Trial No.2/2018. The accused also filed Appeal against conviction that was numbered as Crl.A.102 of 2018. While considering the referred trial and the criminal appeal, the Division Bench of this Court found grave error in investigation as well as in the trial. Finally the Court concluded as under:

“20.1. The Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court Judge, Thiruvannamalai, in S.C.No.102 of 2015, by the judgment, dated 31.01.2018. The appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and his directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Fine amounts, if any, paid by the appellant, shall be refunded to him. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged.

20.2. The Case Diary and other relevant documents shall be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai, who is directed to conduct de-novo investigation and file necessary final report before the committal court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

4. Pursuant to this direction, CBI has taken up the de novo investigation and completed the investigation, filed the final report before the Special Court for POCSO Cases, Thiruvannamali. The trial Court has framed charges under Sections 364 and 302 IPC and commenced the trial. On the day when present petition filed, the prosecution has completed examining all its witnesses except the I.O. At that juncture, the present original petition is filed on the ground that he being acquitted for the same charges, cannot be prosecuted again, in the light of Section 300 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and Ors in Crl.A.No.1160 of 2006 and T.P.Gopalakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala in Crl.A.Nos.187-188 of 2017 and submitted that the final report filed by the CBI which has been now taken on file by the POCSO Court, Thiruvannamali in Special S.C. No.42/2021, has to be quashed.

6. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that in the referred trial, which examining the sustainability of the trial Court judgment imposing de