Delhi District Court
Trilok Singh @ Tersem vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04:CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI: DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-014635-2022
CR No. 585/2022
Trilok Singh @ Tersem
S/o. Sh. Jagir Singh
R/o. H. No. 1778/5, Bhagwan Nagar,
Pipli, Kurukshetra, Haryana.
...... Revisionists
Vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Director of
Prosecution Cell, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi.
...... Respondent
Date of institution of Revision : 19.10.2022
Date on which order reserved : 20.09.2024
Date on which order pronounced : 16.12.2024
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist u/s. 399 Cr. P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 04.08.2022 passed by Sh. Anurag Dass, ld. ACMM-02, Central, THC, Delhi in Case CIS No. 299151/16, FIR No. CR No. 585/2022 Trilok Singh @ Tersem Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 1 of 8 38/11, PS Gulabi Bagh whereby the application of the revisionist seeking discharge was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case necessary to decide the present revision petition are that the present FIR bearing no. 38/2011, PS Gulabi Bagh was registered on the complaint of Nathu Swami, Manager of M/s. Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd., that on 16.05.2011, one truck bearing no. RJ 14 GB 8364 was hired from Randhawa Carriage Corp. (India) whose owner is Balwant Singh Randhawa and the driver was accused Tersem Singh. It is alleged that the aforesaid truck was loaded with 85 bilti and 321 articles at 11.00 a.m. on 16.05.2011 and the accused was handed over the bilti and bill of the aforesaid articles to be taken from Delhi to Mumbai and he was also given Rs. 25,000/- in advance. It is alleged that in routine, the truck should have reached Mumbai on 19.05.2011 but it did not reach there. The owner of the transport company did not give satisfactory answer and the mobile number of the driver was coming switched off. On such statement, the FIR u/s. 407/34 IPC was registered on 23.05.2011.
3. During investigation, the driving license of the driver was found to be fake and his address on the driving license was also found to be false. On 26.05.2011, the aforesaid truck was found parked in the truck parking at Singhu Border in abandoned condition and the same was taken into possession by the police. On 19.06.2011, vide DD No. 22A, PS Gulabi Bagh, an information was received from SI Sitaram, CIA CR No. 585/2022 Trilok Singh @ Tersem Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 2 of 8 Staff Kurukshetra, Haryana that the driver of truck bearing no. RJ 14 GB 8362 has been apprehended and the goods have been recovered. IO alongwith the complainant reached Kurukshetra, Haryana and found that the accused and one more co-accused Manak were arrested in the FIR bearing no. 206/2011, u/s. 379/411/34 IPC, PS Sadar Kurukshetra. The accused was taken on PC remand and bilti of some articles were recovered.
4. During trial, charge u/s. 407/411/465/471/120B IPC dated 30.09.2011 was framed in the present case against the accused.
5. In the meanwhile, the accused persons Trilok Singh and Manak Singh were tried u/s. 379/411 IPC in FIR No. 206/2011, PS Sadar, Kurukshetra and they were acquitted vide order dated 06.01.2016 of the ld. JMFC, Kurukshetra.
6. On such basis, the applicant/accused filed one application seeking discharge claiming double jeopardy.
7. The ld. Court vide impugned order dated 04.08.2022, observed that the charges framed in the present case are for the offences u/s. 407/411/465/471/120B IPC whereas the judgment of acquittal related to different offences for which the charge u/s. 379/411 IPC were attracted and therefore, concluded that both the offences are entirely different and as such, dismissed the application of the revisionist.
CR No. 585/2022Trilok Singh @ Tersem Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 3 of 8
8. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 04.08.2022, the present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist on the following grounds :-
(i) Because the learned Trial Court has not exercised its judicial discretion justly, fairly and reasonably and has failed to exercise the judicial discretion vested in it by law and non exercising of the jurisdiction by the learned trial court has caused grave miscarriage and failure of justice to the petitioner which can not be compensated in terms of money.
(ii) Because the learned trial court has totally failed to consider the material facts that the averments made in the charge sheet and documentary evidence in support of the charge sheet and other material placed on judicial record clearly disclose the applicability of the principle of double jeopardy.
(iii) Because the learned trial court has exercised its judicial power mechanically without application of the mind.
(iv) Because the learned trial court has not given the thoughtful consideration to the contents of the charge sheet and documentary evidence in support of the same which clearly make out the case for the applicability of double jeopardy in favor of the revisionist.
(v) Because the learned trial court has committed the gross error of law on the face of the record in appreciating the material available on judicial record.
9. It is contended by ld. Counsel for revisionist that the revisionist cannot be tried for the same offence for which he has been previously acquitted by the competent Court. It is contended that the fundamental right guaranteed by the CR No. 585/2022 Trilok Singh @ Tersem Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 4 of 8 Constitution of India to a person not to suffer denovo prosecution for the same offence must be protected. It is further argued that as per Section 300 Cr. P.C., a person who has been tried by the Court of competent jurisdiction for a offence and acquitted for such offence, while the acquittal remains in force, he is not liable to be tried again on the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for which different charge from the one made against him might have been made. It is further argued that the revisionist has been acquitted for the offence u/s. 379/411 IPC by the competent Court of ld. JMFC, Kurukshetra and no appeal has been preferred against the said acquittal which has now attained finality. It is further argued that the factual matrix of the previous case and the instance case are same and the revisionist has been charged additional for the offence u/s. 407/471 IPC which arise on the same set of facts which were in issue in the previous trial. It is further argued that the co- accused Manak Singh was discharged on the same ground of double jeopardy by the ld. JMFC Court. It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
10. To the contrary, Ld. Addl. PP for State submitted that the impugned order passed by the ld. MM is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is further argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It is further argued that the revisionist was tried only for the offence u/s. 379/411 IPC as the goods were recovered CR No. 585/2022 Trilok Singh @ Tersem Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 5 of 8 in Kurukshetra and not for the offences for which he is charged in the present case. It is further argued that there is no question of double jeopardy. It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be dismissed.
11. This Court has heard the contentions from both the sides and has perused the judicial record.
12. The concept of double jeopardy is stipulated in Section 300 Cr. P.C. which provides that a person once convicted or acquitted should not be tried for the same offence. Clause (1) of the said Section provides as follows :-
"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 u/s. 1 of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub Section (2) thereof."
13. Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India also stipulates that a person cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. It is based on the legal maxim autrefois convict and autrefois acquit.
14. In the present case, the revisionist has been charged for the offence u/s. 407/411//465/471/120B IPC on 30.09.2011 on the allegations that he was entrusted at Delhi on 16.05.2011 with the articles to be delivered at Bombay which the revisionist misappropriated and that on 19.06.2011, the stolen CR No. 585/2022 Trilok Singh @ Tersem Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 6 of 8 articles were recovered from him and that he was found in possession of fake driving license which he has used as genuine and that he has conspired with co-accused to commit the offence of criminal breach of trust.
15. After the registration of the FIR No. 38/2011, PS Gulabi Bagh, the revisionist was arrested with the stolen articles at Kurukshetra and a separate FIR No. 206/11 PS Sadar Kurukshetra was registered. The judgment in the said FIR No. 206/11 would reveal that the revisionist was tried only on the facts that he was found in possession of the stolen articles and he was finally acquitted by the Court of Ld. JMFC, Kurukshetra on the ground that the case property was never produced during the trial and also for the reason that the recovery made from the revisionist was not in pursuance of confessional statement.
16. Conspicuously, the revisionist was not tried for the facts that the stolen goods were entrusted to him by the complainant at Delhi to be delivered at Bombay which he has allegedly misappropriated or for the offence of preparing fake driving license and using the same as genuine and also not the offence of criminal conspiracy.
17. It is correct that the revisionist has already been tried for the offence u/s. 411 IPC for being found in possession of the stolen articles and therefore, he cannot be tried and prosecuted again for the offence u/s. 411 IPC only.
CR No. 585/2022Trilok Singh @ Tersem Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 7 of 8
18. Thus, the charge u/s. 411 IPC in the present case needs to be striked off. For the rest of the charges i.e. Section 407/465/471/120B IPC, the revisionist must be put on trial.
19. Resultantly, the present revision petition is partly allowed.
The ld. Trial Court is directed to alter the charge in view of the aforesaid observations and to proceed with the trial as per law.
20. Copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial Court alongwith the TCR for information and necessary action.
21. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 16th December, 2024 (SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI) ASJ-04/CENTRAL/DELHI 16.12.2024(VR) Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI ANUJ Date:
TYAGI 2024.12.16
11:59:48
+0530
CR No. 585/2022
Trilok Singh @ Tersem Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 8 of 8