The main legal point established in the judgment is that the protection against double jeopardy is not violated if the ingredients of the offences in the earlier case are not identical to the subsequent offence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for revisionists and Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.

2. The facts of the present case reveals that revisionists herein had earlier faced trial being Sessions Trial No. 133 of 2005 for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, wherein by judgment and order dated 07.12.2006, they were granted acquittal.

3. Subsequently, the revisionists and four other accused persons faced another trial wherein by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Complaint Case No. 2164 of 2013 (Pratap Singh vs. Satish and others) they were convicted under Section 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and were sentenced imprisonment for two years' each along with fine of Rs. 5000/-under Section 406 IPC as well as one year each along with fine of Rs. 500/-under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default each has to undergo two months' additional imprisonment. Further they were directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/-as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The appeal thereof was partly allowed whereby only the present revisionists were convicted and rest of four accused persons were acquitted as well as conviction under Section 406 IPC was also set aside and they were convicted only under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, however, sentence and the default sentences was not interfered. Under above background, the present criminal revision-petition has been filed challenging impugned judgment.

4. Shri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that since they were granted acquittal in a trial for under Sections 498A as well as 304B IPC, therefore, on similar facts, they could not be convicted under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as allegation for demand of dowry were not found true against them in earlier trial. Subsequent conviction on same facts under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is in violation of protection granted under Section 300 Cr.P.C. as it would amount to be double jeopardy.

5. The above submissions are opposed by Sri Paritosh Malviaya, learned AGA that scope of allegations under Sections 498A and 304B IPC are absolutely different from scope of offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. Learned counsels have further submitted that Section 300 Cr.P.C. provides that persons once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. It would apply only where subsequent trial is on same offence or similar in nature but not for distinct offence.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Section 300 Cr.P.C. is mentioned hereinafter:

“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 subsection (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.

(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of section 220.

(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.

(4) A person acquitted convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for