CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Kolla Veera Raghav Rao vs Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 1 February 2011 · Citation: (2011) 2 ACR 1497 : AIR 2011 SC 641 : (2011) AIRSCW 788 : (2010) 1 BC 669 : (2011) 2 BomCR 448 : (2011) 2 CALLT 77 : (2011) 1 CG.L.R.W. 415 : (2011) 1 CGBCLJ 67 : (2011) 112 CLT 79 : (2011) CriLJ 1094 : (2011) 1 Crimes 266 : (2011) 2 CTC 459 : (2011) 2 JC

HON’BLE JUDGES
Markandey Katju, J · Gyan Sudha Misra, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal A. No. 1160 of 2006
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 415 words
1.

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 07th October, 2005 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 1999 and Criminal Revision Case No. 312 of 1999.

2.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was already convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and hence he could not be again tried or punished on the same facts u/s 420 or any other provision of Indian Penal Code or any other statute. We find force in this submission.

4.

It may be noticed that there is a difference between the language used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 20(2) states:

no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

5.

On the other hand. Section 300(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure States:

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 Sub-section (1) of Section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under Sub-section (2) thereof.

6.

Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once', Section 300(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts. In the present case, although the offences are different but the facts are the same. Hence, Section 300(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, applies. Consequently, the prosecution u/s 420, Indian Penal Code was barred by Section 300(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.