Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36668

- 1 -

CRL.RP No. 100151 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100151 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S.DANESHWARI COMPANY
GENERAL MERCHANTS
M-14, MARKET YARD, BELGAUM
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
R/BY ITS PARTNERS

1A) SHRI SHRISHAIL GIDDAPPA KHADABADI

1B) DAYANAND SIDDAPPA KHADABADI

BOTH ARE MAJORS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. BHANDUR GALLI,
BELGAUM
..…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANKIT DESAI, ADV. FOR
SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH , ADV.)

AND:

THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
APMC YARD, BELGAUM
R/BY ITS SECRETARY
..…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADV.)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
CONVICTION DATED 03.04.2014 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE,
BELGAUM,
IN
CRL.A.NO.178/2005
CONFIRMED
THE

Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) prohibits the re-prosecution of a person for the same offense for which they have already been acquitted or convicted.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 300 OF CR.P.C. - ACQUITTAL - RE-PROSECUTION - LIMITATION - SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL PROVISION DISCUSSED BY THE COURT:The court discussed the legal provision of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which prohibits the re-prosecution of a person for the same offense for which they have already been acquitted or convicted. The court highlighted that this provision is intended to prevent double jeopardy and protect the accused from being harassed by multiple prosecutions for the same offense.KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS, THEIR INTERPRETATIONS, AND HOW THEY INFLUENCED THE COURT'S DECISION:* Section 300 of Cr.P.C.: The court interpreted this provision as prohibiting the re-prosecution of a person for the same offense for which they have already been acquitted or convicted. The court held that this provision is intended to prevent double jeopardy and protect the accused from being harassed by multiple prosecutions for the same offense.* Acquittal: The court held that an acquittal in a criminal case means that the accused has been found not guilty of the offense charged. An acquittal can be based on a finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt or that the accused had a valid defense, such as self-defense or insanity.* Re-prosecution: The court held that re-prosecution is prohibited under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. if the accused has already been acquitted or convicted of the same offense. The court noted that there are exceptions to this rule, such as when new evidence is discovered or when the accused has committed a subsequent offense that is related to the original offense.* Limitation: The court held that there is a limitation period for filing a criminal complaint. The limitation period varies depending on the offense charged. The court noted that the limitation period for the offense in this case had expired, which meant that the prosecution could not be re-opened.RATIO DECIDENDI:The court held that the prosecution in this case was barred by Section 300 of Cr.P.C. because the accused had already been acquitted of the same offense in a previous prosecution. The court also held that the limitation period for filing a criminal complaint had expired, which further barred the prosecution.FINAL DECISION:The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were convicted and sentenced for failing to pay market fees under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966. They challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecution was barred by Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) as they had been previously acquitted of the same offense.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the prosecution was not barred by Section 300 of Cr.P.C. as the petitioners had not been previously acquitted of the same offense. The court also held that the limitation period for filing a criminal complaint had expired, which further barred the prosecution.
Issues: Whether the prosecution was barred by Section 300 of Cr.P.C. as the petitioners had been previously acquitted of the same offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution was not barred by Section 300 of Cr.P.C. as the petitioners had not been previously acquitted of the same offense. The court also held that the limitation period for filing a criminal complaint had expired, which further barred the prosecution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court.

AND

CONVICTION

DATED

26.08.2005

C.C.NO.232/2001 PASSED BY THE JMFC IV-COURT, BELGAUM.

SUJATA

SUBHASH

PAMMAR

Digitally signed

by SUJATA

SUBHASH

PAMMAR

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD

BENCH,

DHARWAD.

Date: 2023.01.31

11:55:19 +0530

- 2 -

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the revision

petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence in C.C.No.232/2001 dated 26.08.2005 on the file

of JMFC-Iv Court, Belagavi and confirmed by the I Addl.

Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.No.178/2005 vide

judgment dated 3^rd April 2014.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to with the original rankings occupied by them

before the Trial Court.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that the complainant/APMC has filed a private complaint

under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’, for short) in

P.C.No.65/2000 alleging that the accused have committed

offence under Sections 114 and 117 of the Karnataka

Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966

- 3 -

(hereinafter referred to as ‘APMC Act’, for short) and have

failed to pay the market fee as required under the Act.

Initially recovery proceedings initiated in the year 1979.

However, later on the matter was remanded to APMC to

decide after affording a reasonable opportunity before

initiating recovery proceedings. In spite of sufficient

opportunities, accused failed to pay the market fee for the

years

1979-1980,

1980-1981,

1981-1982,

totally

amounting to Rs.74,177/- and hence, it is alleged that

they are liable to pay three times the penalty. When the

accused were called upon to pay the said amount by

issuing notice, the accused failed to make the payment.

Hence, by the resolution, the Secretary of APMC was

authorised to lodge the complaint and initiated the

prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections 114

and 117 of the Act. Initially plea was recorded only under

Section 117 of the Act and the accused were held guilty

and in appeal, the matter was remanded back with a

direction to record the plea under Section 114 of the Act.

Thereafter the plea was recorded under Section 114 of the

- 4 -

Act and no fresh evidence was adduced by either of the

parties. After the trial, the learned Magistrate has

convicted the accused by sentencing them to pay a fine of

Rs.3,000/- each with default sentence of three months.

The

said

judgment

came

challenged

Crl.A.No.178/2005 before the I Addl. Sessions Judge,

Belagavi and the same came to be dismissed. Hence, the

petitioners are before this Court.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for revision petitioners/accused and learned

H.C.G.P. for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

Learned counsel for revision petitioners would

mainly harp on the point that the prosecution is hit under

Section 300 of Cr.P.C. It is alleged that initially for the

similar offence, the petitioners were prosecuted which has

ended in acquittal. Hence, the claim of the prosecution

suffers under Section 300 of Cr.P.C.

- 5 -

Per contra, learned counsel for complainant/

APMC would support the judgment and further contend

that no document has been produced to prove that there

is any prosecution for a particular period as referred in the

present complaint and both the Courts have elaborately

discussed this aspect and arrived at a just conclusion.

Hence, he would seek for dismissal of the revision.

Having heard the arguments it is evident that

all along the revision petitioners have raised the issue that

complaint is hit by Section 300 of Cr.P.C. as they were

initially prosecuted but on perusal of the records, no

evidence is placed to show that the present accused were

prosecuted for some charges and that matter ended in

acquittal. Except bald assertion and reference made to

C.C.No.1272/1986,

document

produced

substantiated this contention

Click Here to Read the rest of this document