The principle of double jeopardy does not bar a second prosecution for a distinct offence, even if the offences arise from the same set of facts.

( 1 ) THE present revision is directed against the orders passed by the Courts below refusing to drop or quash criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Sitapur. The applicants plea is that on the same set of facts on which the present prosecution is based he was prosecuted earlier and was convicted and, therefore, the second prosecution on the same set of facts is barred. In support of this plea the applicant has relied upon Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and Subsection (1) of Section 403 of the Cr. P. C. In order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary to narrate the history of the case.

( 2 ) THE applicant is a dealer in food grains and has his shop in Kesriganj within the Circle of P. Laharpur, District Sitapur. On 21-51971 Sri Yogendra Bux Singh, Food Inspector, visited his shop suspecting adulteration in gram wanted to take sample thereof. In order to take the sample he expressed desire to purchase 600 grammes of gram. It is alleged that the applicant refused to sell gram to said Sri Singh and he pushed him out of the shop and thereafter put his lock on the shop, thus preventing Sri Singh from taking the sample. A first information report of the incident was lodged at P. S. Laharpur on 21-5-1971 at 6. 55 p. m. under Section 353 of the I. P. C. The incident itself was said to have taken place at 6 p. m. Thereafter on 22-5-1971 the Food Inspector sent a charge-sheet to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sitapur under Section 16 (1) (b) read with Section 10/1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On the basis of the Charge-sheet submitted by the Food Inspector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sitapur ordered on 26-5-1971 for the case to be registered against the present applicant and also ordered summoning of the accused. After the applicant had put in appearance the learned Magistrate framed charge against him under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in following terms:

Dinank 21-5-71 ko turn karib 6 baje Sham apani galley ki dukan par gehun, chana, arhar bikri hetu rakhey Khadya Nirikshak Laharpur dwara paya gaya aur jiska licence mangne par tatha namoone ke llye milavat ka Shak hone par 600 grams chana dene se inkar kiya aur Khadya Nirikshak ko apshabd kahte have jabaran unhe dukanse baahar kar dukan men tala laga diya.

(underlined by me)

( 3 ) THE applicant was tried on the basis of the above charge and the learned Magistrate found him guilty of the charge and convicting him sentenced him to pay the fine of Rs. 500/-or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months. This order of the learned Magistrate was passed on 15-5-1972. Against this order the applicant preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned I Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge by his order dated 22-61972 dismissed the appeal.

( 4 ) WHILE the above proceedings were pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a charge sheet was submitted by the Police under S 353 of the I. P. C. on 30-6-1971. On coming to know of the submission of the charge sheet against him the applicant surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 27-5-1971 and was subsequently bailed out. The learned Magistrate framed charge against the applicant on 16-3-1972, as indicated therein before the judgment of the learned Magistrate in the earlier trial was passed on 15-5-1972. Thus when the charge was framed on 16-3-1972 in the second case the earlier case was still pending. The charge framed on 16-3-1972 in the second trial was in following terms:

That you on or about 6-00 p. m. in Mohalla Kesariganj, P. S. Laharpur, district Sitapur, assaulted Sri Yogendra Bux Singh, Food inspector, a public servant to wit by pushing him out of your updown_ and not allowing him to take sample of gram in the execution of his Duty as such public servant. (underlined by me) On