Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. K. Tare, J.
CHINTAMANRAO BALAJIRAO - Appellant
Versus
DIGRAM BADLURAM - Respondents
Criminal Revn. 367 Of 1957
Decided On : 08/27/1959
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 403 - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - SAME OFFENCE - ARTICLE 20(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - BAR OF PROSECUTION - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN SAME OFFENCE AND DISTINCT OFFENCE - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO INTERFERE WITH ACQUITTAL AT THE INSTANCE OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINANT - EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES - MISAPPREHENSION OF LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The non-applicant was discharged by the trial Magistrate under Section 251-A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that he could not be prosecuted twice for the same offence. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the trial Magistrate's decision. The applicant, a private complainant, filed a revision petition challenging the order of discharge.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the order of discharge was passed by the trial Magistrate and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge upon a clear misapprehension of the purport and the scope of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The High Court further held that the present case belonged to the category of exceptional cases, as, in this case, the order of discharge was passed by the trial Magistrate and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge upon a clear misapprehension of the purport and the scope of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. That misapprehension on the part of the learned Judges makes an interference by this Court necessary in the interest of justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-applicant could be prosecuted twice for the same offence? 2. Whether the order of discharge passed by the trial Magistrate was valid? 3. Whether the High Court had the power to interfere with the order of discharge passed by the trial Magistrate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the non-applicant could not be prosecuted twice for the same offence, but the present prosecution was not for the same offence as the previous prosecution. The previous prosecution was for possession of certain counterfeit labels, while the present prosecution was for possession of certain other sets of counterfeit labels, as also dyes for printing of wrappers and labels. 2. The High Court held that the order of discharge passed by the trial Magistrate was not valid as it was based on a misapprehension of the law. 3. The High Court held that it had the power to interfere with the order of discharge passed by the trial Magistrate as the present case belonged to the category of exceptional cases, where non-interference may amount to justice being thwarted, due to a misapprehension of the law on the part of the learned Judges of the Courts below.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of discharge passed by the trial Magistrate, and remitted the case to the trial Magistrate for further inquiry and trial according to law.
( 1 ) THIS revision under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is by the complainant. Upon the report of the applicant, the Sagar Police put up a challan against the non-applicant Digram and three others, namely, Girilal, Kishorilal and Ramgopal for alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 483, 485 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code. At the initial stage of the trial, the Trial Magistrate discharged the accused Digram under Section 251-A (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The present revision is directed against the order dated 8-7-1957, passed by Shri M. Bajpai, First Additional Sessions judge, Sagar, refusing to set aside the order of discharge passed by Shri L. B. B. Singh. Judge-Magistrate, Sagar on 11-2-1957 in Criminal Case No. 33 of 1956.
( 2 ) IT was the prosecution case that the non-applicant and the 3 other accused entered into a conspiracy for cheating, and with that object in view, they were in possession of counterfeit trade mark of bidi labels identical with the registered trade mark of the applicant, bearing trade mark No. 22 and registered in the name of Brijlal Manilal. The applicant is a partner of the said firm of Brijlal Manilal.
( 3 ) THE non-applicant had earlier been prosecuted and also convicted of an offence under Section 485 of the Indian Penal Code by the Magistrate First Class, Delhi. On account of that conviction, the trial Magistrate discharged the non-applicant on the ground that the accused could not be prosecuted for the same offence twice. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld that view of the trial Magistrate.
( 4 ) FROM a perusal of the judgment of the previous case, which is on record, it is clear that the present non-applicant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 485 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he was in possession of some counterfeit labels bearing similarity to the labels of the applicant, which had been registered as a trade mark with registration No. 22. For that offence the Magistrate at Delhi convicted the non-applicant in Criminal Case No. 91/2 and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/ -.
( 5 ) IN the present case certain other similar labels, as also dyes for printing wrappers and labels were seized. It may be that a person may be in possession of different sets of counterfeit labels on different occasions at different places. If such a person be found in possession, he, in my opinion, will be deemed to have committed a distinct and separate offence in respect of each set of counterfeit labe's found with him at different places. It cannot be said that a second prosecution in respect of another set of counterfeit labels found with a person would amount to a prosecution for the same offence twice. Even from the judgment of the previous criminal case as also the challan filed in the present case, it is apparent that the non-applicant is being prosecuted for offences under different heads in respect of different sets of labels and dyes for printing wrappers and labels, which were not the subject matter of the previous prosecution. Even in respect of the labels, it cannot be said that the non-applicant is being prosecuted for the same offence twice. Therefore, I am of opinion that the present prosecution cannot be said to be in violation of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code or Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India.
( 6 ) REGARDING Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Sub-section (2) thereof permits a trial for any distinct offence, in respect of which a separate charge might have been made against the person in the former trial under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On account of this, the previous conviction cannot be a bar to the prosecution of the non-applicant for an offence, which, he was not charged with, in the previous case. The prosecution would be barred in respect of any charge which was framed in the previous case and of which he m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
