Latest News
Back
Section 300 CrPC BarTrial of a Person Not Only for the Same Offence, but Also for Any Other Offence Based on the Same Facts: Supreme Court
The very best courtroom has reiterated that segment 300 CrPC bars the trial of a person no longer best for the identical offence but additionally for every other offence at the same information.
The courtroom was listening to a crook enchantment that turned into a file assailing the judgment and order surpassed by way of the high courtroom of Kerala in crook enchantment Nos. 947 and 948 of 2009 through which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence exceeded in C.C. No. 24 and 25 of 2003 by way of the Trial courtroom had been upheld using the Trial courtroom were upheld by using brushing off the aforesaid appeals and therefore confirming the conviction of the appellant herein.
The Impugned Judgment
The Trial courtroom vides its judgment and order dated 27.04.2009 in both the aforesaid instances had convicted the appellant for offences underneath segment thirteen(2) read with segment thirteen(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and had sentenced him to go through rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a nice of Rupees Thousand and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused become further convicted for the offence under phase 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to go through rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rupees two Thousand and in default thereof, to go through rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Brief data of the Case
The allegation against the accused changed into that at the same time as the accused was operating as Agricultural Officer, country Seed Farm, Perambra, for the duration 31.05.1991 to 31.05.1994, he abused his legitimate role as a public servant and devoted crook breach of accepting as true with and misappropriated quantities from the auction of coconuts for the duration of the period from 27.04.1992 to 25.08.1992, though not remitting the identical to the Sub-Treasury, Perambra.
because of this a surprise inspection became performed in the country Seed Farm, Perambra and the inspection team located that the coins ebook was now not nicely maintained and that the rural Officer obtained quantities from the Treasury. The inspection report was submitted to the Director of Agriculture. On the idea of the stated record, an enquiry was carried out by way of the vigilance branch and a crook case become registered against the accused. On of completion of research, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted 3 reviews and 3 crook cases were registered towards the accused below section thirteen(1)(c) study with section 13(2) of the Act and Sections 409 and 477A of IPC. The money owed Officer performed an audit within the nation Seed Farm, about the duration from 31.05.1991 to 31.05.1994 and gave a report. Based on the same, the two cases, out of which this enchantment arises, have been registered towards the appellant.
Arguments of the Appellant
The stand that the appellant took earlier than the ideally suited courtroom assailing the judgment of the Trial court and later upheld via the excessive court, is as follows :
throughout the length in question, the Appellant had an additional fee for a few other farms and had to heavily depend on his subordinates in the office to conduct the affairs of the kingdom Seed Farm, Perambra.
The Appellant is a public servant. segment 197(1) of the CrPC calls for sanction of the kingdom authorities earlier than taking recognition of offence against public servants, including the accused. The whole prosecution complaints within the present cases are barred using section 300(1) of the CrPC which includes the principle of double jeopardy. The Appellant turned into already prosecuted inside the 12 months of 1999 for the costs of misappropriating public funds entrusted to him, whilst C.C. No.12 to fourteen/1999 for the expenses of stealing the public price range entrusted to him, whilst C.C. No.12 to 14/1999 had been filed in opposition to him.
The core allegation in all five cases is one and identical i.e., making fake entries within the cash e-book and misappropriating cash.
The FIR within the gift cases was filed on 03.12.2001 after the appellant was brushed off from the provider and the judgment of the Trial court docket changed into surpassed. The allegations/offences in the present two cases could have been framed on the previous trial and the appellant herein could have been attempted for the same together with the trial of the earlier three instances.
If the Appellant turned into to be attempted once more for the present offences, preceding consent of the country government became essential as is remitted under sub-section (2) of phase three hundred of the CrPC.
The conviction of the appellant herein under section 409 of the IPC has no prison basis for the reason that the prosecution could not prove the maximum important ingredient of the said offence, specifically, entrustment of products or dominion over property.
The conviction below segment 13(1)(c) of the Act isn't always made out because the prosecution failed to show that the belongings were entrusted to him or turned into below his management and that the identical became fraudulently or dishonestly misappropriated via him.
dialogue on Double Jeopardy
The courtroom held, "Articles 20 to 22 deal with private liberty of citizens and others. Article 20(2) expressly offers that no person will be prosecuted or punished for an equal offence, more than once. The safety in opposition to double jeopardy is also supplemented by using statutory provisions contained in section 300 of the CrPC, section 40 of the Indian proof Act, 1872, section 71 of the IPC and section 26 of the general Clauses Act, 1897."
Discussing the relevance of section 300 CrpC, the court held, "section three hundred of the CrPC locations a bar in which, someone who has already been attempted using a court of able jurisdiction for an offence arising out of the equal facts, and has either been acquitted or convicted of such offence can not be attempted once more for the same offence as well as at the equal records for another offence so long as such acquittal or conviction remains in pressure."
Judgment
bearing on the mandate of section three hundred CrPC with the statistics of the immediate case, the court, in the words of Justice BV. Nagarathna, held, "The appellant herein become in advance charged for offences beneath phase thirteen(1)(c) study with phase thirteen(2) of the Act and Sections 409 and 477A of the IPC and become convicted in cases and acquitted in one case. the existing cases get up out of the identical set of records and
the equal transaction as that within the previous 3 instances in which the appellant became attempted and convicted/acquitted respectively. For an offence to be considered as the 'identical offence' as the ultimate offence, it's miles important to reveal that the offences aren't distinct and the components of the offences are the same. The previous charge as well as the prevailing price is for the equal length of misappropriation. the problem of offences in all the previous three cases and the prevailing case are the same and are stated to be committed in the path of the same transaction even as conserving the only and equal publish of Agricultural Officer through the appellant."
The court in addition held that "The appellant is right in contending that the rate within the first three cases have been framed on 17.08.1999 that is a good deal after the audit and the prosecution could be properly aware of the misappropriation in admire of the existing instances on 17.08.1999."
The court further remarked that "It has already been discovered that the allegations/offences in the instantaneous instances are similar to the allegations/offences inside the preceding 3 cases, therefore as according to the mandate underneath segment three hundred(2) of the CrPC, the consent of the state government is necessary.
even supposing it's far assumed for the sake of argument that the allegations are distinctive in present instances from those in the preceding instances, the prosecution didn't obtain the earlier consent of the country authorities essential to prosecute the accused-appellant and consequently the trial inside the immediate case is illegal.”
The judgment changed into delivered by the division bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna.
