The principle of double jeopardy does not apply when the offences for which the accused is being tried are different and distinct, even if they arise from the same set of facts.

JUDGMENT

R.K. Pattanaik, J. - The petitioners have filed the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the correctness of the impugned order of cognizance dated 25th April, 2008 passed in G.R. Case No.130 of 2007 arising out of Purighat P.S. Case No.21 of 2007 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack on various grounds inter alia contending that such a prosecution is in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and also Section 300 Cr.P.C. as they could not have been prosecuted once again for the self-same incident which amounts to double jeopardy.

2. A prosecution was launched after a written report was lodged at Purighat P.S. registered under Section(s) 342 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. with the allegation that OP No.2's son, namely, OP No.3, who was working in the house of the petitioners was ill treated and assaulted. For the alleged occurrence, as contended by the petitioners, the District Labour Officer (in short 'DLO') as well as IIC, Purighat P.S. took up the matter and in that respect, a complaint was filed by the DLO before the court below under Section 3 and 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') and also a written report lodged by OP No.2 which ultimately led to the submission of charge sheet under Section(s) 342 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. and thereafter, the cognizance was taken of said offences. It is pleaded that pursuant to the complaint filed by the DLO, order of cognizance for an offence under Section 14 of the Act, 1986 was passed and the petitioners were put to trial and later on convicted and sentenced. As against the above facts, the petitioners further pleaded that once having been convicted for an offence under Section 14 of the Act, 1986, for the same incident and set of facts, another prosecution under Section(s) 342 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. cannot be maintained.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for OP No.1.

4. As it appears from the record, the petitioners have been convicted in 2.C.C. No.84 of 2007 by a judgment dated 23rd May, 2009 of the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack directing both of them to undergo S.I. for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month and being aggrieved of the conviction, Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2009 was filed before the Sessions Court. It is further made to appear that the petitioners in CRLMC No.1827 of 2007 challenged the F.I.R. before this Court which was disposed of by an order 21st February, 2008 declining to interfere with the observation that the petitioners may not even be charge sheeted on completion of investigation. After submission of charge sheet and passing of the impugned order dated 25th April, 2008 under Annexure-5, the petitioners once again approached this Court in CRLMC No.1187 of 2008 which was, however, stated to have been withdrawn and disposed of on 7th July, 2009. The petitioners have questioned the legality of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5 on the ground that the offences punishable under Section(s) 342 and 323 I.P.C. have not been made out while considering the F.I.R. and other materials including the charge sheet i.e. Annexure-4. It is also contended that when the petitioners have already been convicted by a judgment dated 23rd May, 2009 by the learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack in 2 C.C. No.84 of 2007 (Annexure-3), again they cannot be prosecuted which violates the law envisaged in Section 300 Cr.P.C.

5. In so far as the conviction of the petitioners is concerned, it is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act, 1986 and the issue was whether they employed OP No.3 in labour work in their house in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 thereof and in that respect, the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack reached at a conclusion that the alleged offence was made out. In other words, the engagement of OP No.3