Section 300 CrPC Bars The Trial of a Person Not Only For The Same Offence But Also For Any Other Offence On The Same Facts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that Section 300 CrPC bars the trial of a person not only for the same offence but also for any other offence on the same facts.The court was hearing a Criminal Appeal that was filed assailing the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal Nos. 947 and 948 of 2009 by which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No. 24 and 25 of 2003 by the Trial Court had been upheld by dismissing the aforesaid appeals and consequently confirming the conviction of the appellant herein.The Impugned JudgmentThe Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 27.04.2009 in both the aforesaid cases had convicted the appellant for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rupees Two Thousand and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was further convicted for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rupees Two Thousand and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Brief Facts of the CaseThe allegation against the accused was that while the accused was working as Agricultural Officer, State Seed Farm, Perambra, for the period 31.05.1991 to 31.05.1994, he abused his official position as a public servant and committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated amounts from the auctioning of coconuts during the period from 27.04.1992 to 25.08.1992, by not remitting the same to the Sub-Treasury, Perambra. As a result of which a surprise inspection was carried out in the State Seed Farm, Perambra and the inspection team found that the cash book was not properly maintained and that the Agricultural Officer received amounts from the Treasury. The inspection report was submitted to the Director of Agriculture. On the basis of the said report, an enquiry was conducted by the vigilance department and a criminal case was registered against the accused. On completion of investigation, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted three reports and three criminal cases were registered against the accused under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and Sections 409 and 477A of IPC. The Accounts Officer conducted an audit in the State Seed Farm, pertaining to the period from 31.05.1991 to 31.05.1994 and gave a report. On the basis of the same, the two cases, out of which this appeal arises, were registered against the appellant.Arguments of the AppellantThe stand that the appellant took before the Supreme Court assailing the judgment of the Trial Court and later upheld by the High Court, is as follows:During the period in question, the Appellant had additional charge of some other farms and had to heavily depend on his subordinates at the office to conduct the affairs of the State Seed Farm, Perambra.The Appellant is a public servant. Section 197(1) of the CrPC requires sanction of the State Government before taking cognizance of offence against public servants such as the accused.The entire prosecution proceedings in the present cases are barred by Section 300(1) of the CrPC which incorporates the principle of double jeopardy. The Appellant was already prosecuted in the year 1999 for the charges of misappropriating public funds entrusted to him, when C.C. No.12 to 14/1999 were filed against him. The core allegation in all the five cases is one and the same i.e., making false entries in the cash book and misappropriating money.The FIR in the present cases was filed on 03.12.2001 after the appellant was dismissed from the service and the judgment of the Trial Court was passed. The allegations/offences in the present two cases could have been framed at the previous trial and the appellant herein could have been tried for the same along with the trial of the earlier three cases.If the Appellant was to be tried again for the present offences, previous consent of the State Government was necessary as is mandated under sub-section (2) of Section 300 of the CrPC.The conviction of the appellant herein under Section 409 of the IPC has no legal basis since the prosecution could not prove the most vital ingredient of the said offence, namely, entrustment of goods or dominion over property.The conviction under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act is not made out since the prosecution failed to prove that the property was entrusted to him or was under his control, and that the same was fraudulently or dishonestly misappropriated by him.Discussion on Double JeopardyThe court held, "Articles 20 to 22 deal with personal liberty of citizens and others. Article 20(2) expressly provides that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence, more than once. The protection against double...

Section 300 CrPC Bars The Trial of a Person Not Only For The Same Offence But Also For Any Other Offence On The Same Facts: Supreme Court

Anurag Tiwary

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anurag Tiwary

Section 300 CrPC Bars The Trial of a Person Not Only For The Same Offence But Also For Any Other Offence On The Same Facts: Supreme Court

Anurag Tiwary

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anurag Tiwary

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers