Narinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab

Surinder Singh, J.

This an application under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner, Narinder Singh and others, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, in First Information Report No. 202, dated May 4, 1982, under Sections 225/224, 147/149, 201/506, 186 Indian Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner No. 1 was caught on May 4, 1982 while allegedly accepting bribe of Rs. 50/ in an arranged raid. The First Information Report in regard to this case is No. 201, of May 4, 1982. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 who are employees of the same Department are said to be present at the time of the raid who raised a protest against the false implication of petitioner No. 1. In consequence of the prosecution of petitioner No. 1, he was convicted by the Court of Sessions, Amritsar under section 5(2), read with section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was sentenced to two years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. Petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence which was allowed by this Court on August 28, 1984, and the said petitioner was acquitted.

It is stated that on the basis of another First Information Report No. 202 of the same date i.e. May 4, 1982, a challan has been filed against the petitioner under Sections 147/149, 224/225, 186, 506 and 201, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners moved an application before the trial Court, i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, praying that the proceedings in the said case may be dropped, as that Court had no jurisdiction to try the Court vide order, Copy Annexure P/2. The present petition has been filed in the wake of the said decision.

Mrs. Vanita Kataria, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised certain contentions, which may be noticed in turn. It is submitted in the first instance that Narinder Singh, petitioner No. 1 having been tried and acquitted in the case under section 5(2) read with section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he cannot be prosecuted in respect of some other offences relating to the same incident more so after a lapse of three years of the occurrence. Counsel has relied upon the provisions section 300, Code of Criminal Procedure. The said section may be noticed in extenso for a proper appreciation of the matter:

"300 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tired 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 subsection (2) thereof.

(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, do any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under subsection (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, it 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 or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.

............ ............... ............

............ ............... ............"

A persual of the above provision clearly indicates that a person who has been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and acquitted, is not liable to be tried again on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge might have been made. SubSection (2) of section 3000 does not contain an exception to this general rule that a person even if acquitted of an offence, may be tried for a distinct offence. However this can be done only with the consent of the State Government. Admittedly no such consent or sanction of the State Government has been obtained in the present case. Another exception provided under subsection (4) is that a person acquitted of an offence may be subsequently charged with land tried for another offence constituted by the same acts if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offences with which he was subsequently charged. The exception cannot be utilised by the prosecution for the purpose of retrying petitioner No. 1, as the Court which tried him for the earlier offence, could very well try him for other offences also at the relevant time by virtue of provisions of Section 7(3) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952. In this view of the matter a fresh trial of Narinder Singh petitioner No. 1. is obviously an abuse of the process of Court and proceedings before the trial Court in so far as this petitioner is concerned are quashed.

In regard to remaining petitioners, the submission made by the learned counsel is that under the provisions of section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court can take congnizence of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of public servant concerned. There is no dispute that no such complaint had been filed in the present case. The learned counsel for the State has, however, contended that out of the offences for which the petitioners are being prosecuted, only section 186, Indian Penal Code, falls within the abovementioned embargo and there is no objection if it is ordered that the petitioners shall not be tried the said offence. In view of this concession, the charge under section 186 Indian Penal Code, against all the petitioners stands quashed. The petitioners other than petitioner No. 1 may, however, be tried for the offences which do not fall within the bar of section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petition stands disposed of it terms of the observations, made above.

Revision disposed of.