Raju and Sharath @ Santhosh vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. the petitioners have sought for quashing the prosecution launched against them in S.C. No. 1453/2011 pending before the Fast Track Court-XII, Bangalore City, inter alia on the ground that the prosecution launched against them is hit by the principle of double jeopardy, which is barred u/s 300 of Cr. P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, since in respect of these very offences, they have already been tried and convicted in S.C. No. 857/2010 on the file of Fast Track Court-IV, Bangalore City. The petitioners have been arraigned as Accused Nos. 2 & 3 in S.C. No. 1453/2011 and they are accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 489-A, B, C & D r/w. 34 of IPC. According to the allegations made in the charge sheet, at about 3.30 pm. on 19.02.2011, the Station House Officer of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, received credible information that a person would come to KHB Complex situated in 8th ''B'' Cross, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, to circulate counterfeit currency notes and immediately, he along with his staff and panchas went near that place, kept watch and at about 3.30 pm., Accused No. 1 came there and immediately, he was surrounded and when personal search was made, he was found in possession of 100 notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/-, which were found to be fake and counterfeit. Therefore, all those counterfeit currency notes were seized and Accused No. 1 was arrested. During the investigation, it was revealed that on 09.04.2010 and prior to that date, Accused Nos. 2 & 3 namely, the petitioners herein had illegally manufactured fake and counterfeit currency notes in their house and in connection with that, a raid was conducted on their house on 09.04.2010 by Amruthahalli Police, at which time, the printers, xerox machine, paper cutters, white sheets, ink bottles containing different coloured ink, injection syringes, cello tape, rubber band, etc. came to be seized and the investigation further revealed that the counterfeit currency notes manufactured by Accused Nos. 2 & 3 were being circulated through Accused No. 1. Materials on record make it clear that on 09.04.2010, a raid was conducted on the rented house of these two petitioners situated in Srirampura village by the Police Inspector of Amruthahalli Police Station, Bangalore, and during the said raid, the aforesaid articles along with few counterfeit currency notes were seized and in that regard, Amruthahalli Police had registered a case in Crime No. 68/2010 and after completing investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against these two petitioners, which came to be committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.C. No. 857/2010. The said Sessions Case was tried before Fast Track Court-IV, Bangalore City and after full-pledged trial, by judgment dated 05.03.2012, these petitioners were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 489-A, B, C & D r/w. 34 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as well as to pay fine for each of those offences. It is also brought to the notice of this court that against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners have filed appeal before this Court and the same is pending. It is further brought to the notice of this court that in the appeal filed before this court, an enquiry was held in respect of the contention that the 2nd petitioner arraigned as Accused No. 2 therein, was a juvenile as on that date and since he had already undergone maximum period of sentence provided under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, he was ordered to be released on bail. However, it is stated that the 2nd petitioner could not be released on bail since he had been implicated in the present case. In S.C. No. 1453/2011, a body warrant was obtained, pursuant to which he was produced before the court, as such, he was made to remain in prison.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader and on perusal of the documents produced along with this petition, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution launched against these petitioners in S.C. No. 1453/2011 is hit by Section 300 of Cr. P.C. and also Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, since they have already been tried for the said offences earlier in S.C. No. 857/2010.

As noticed supra, the petitioners were tried in S.C. No. 857/2010 on the ground that they had manufactured the counterfeit currency notes in their house making use of the printers, xerox machines, white sheets, etc., which were seized from their house during the raid conducted on 09.04.2010.

As could be seen from the charge sheet now pending in S.C. No. 1453/2011, the very same raid conducted and the recovery made on 09.04.2010 is the basis for the prosecution presently launched against these petitioners in S.C. No. 1453/2011.

Section 300 of Cr. P.C. directs that, 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.

Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

In view of the fact that the petitioners have already been prosecuted for the same offences in S.C. No. 857/2010 and have been convicted for the said offences, they cannot once again be prosecuted for the same offences, as it would amount to double jeopardy, which is barred u/s 300 of Cr. P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above discussion, the prosecution launched against these petitioners in S.C. No. 1453/2011 cannot be allowed to continue and it is liable to be quashed against these petitioners. In the result, the petition is allowed. The prosecution launched against these petitioners arraigned as Accused Nos. 2 & 3 in S.C. No. 1453/2011, which is now pending before the Fast Track Court-XII, Bangalore City, is hereby quashed.