Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munnalal vs State Of M.P. on 26 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002CRILJ2607, 2002(3)MPHT352
ORDER S.L. Kochar, J.
1. By this common order, both the revision petitions i.e., Cr. R. No. 134/2002 and Cr.R. No. 135/2002 are being disposed of.
2. Cr. Revision No. 134/2002 has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 16-7-2001 passed by J.M.F.C., Indore in Criminal Case No. 5852/99 whereby rejecting the application to discharge the applicant. The second revision i.e., Cr. R. No. 135/2002 has been filed by the applicant against the order passed by J.M.F.C., Indore in Criminal Case No. 5852/99 by which the charge under Sections 419, 467 and 471, IPC has been framed. Against the applicant Munnalal the police of Police Station, Juni Indore Distt. Indore filed chargesheet under Sections 419, 467 and 471, IPC on the allegations that the accused belongs to Brahmin caste. By mis-representing, obtained false and forged caste certificate i.e., Kori and used the same for obtaining service in Bank Note Press, Dewas. He filed application before the Trial Court contending that similar complaint was filed by the Police of Police Station, Bank Note Press, Dewas vide Crime No. 283/82 under Section 420, IPC and submitted Challan before the Court of law after full fleshed trial, he was acquitted by judgment and order dated 8-1-85 the same has been filed as Annexure P-3, therefore, on the same fact and for the same incident he could not be tried again. Relying upon a judgment delivered by this Court in Rafiq Khan and Anr. v. Smt. Jamila Bi and Anr., 1999(1) JLJ 388. According to the provision of Section 300(1) the person once convicted or acquitted of an offence cannot be tried again for the same offence. He also cannot be tried again for any other offence on the same fact.
3. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 16-7-2001 rejected his application on the ground that under Section 300(2), Cr.PC after obtaining permission from the State Government on the same fact for the other offences, the applicant can be tried. It would appropriate to reproduce Sections 300(1) and (2) Cr.PC. :
"300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried 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 Sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under Sub-section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under Sub-section (1) of Section 220."
4. There is no dispute that the accused once tried and acquitted by Court of competent jurisdiction or convicted of such offence cannot be tried again for the same offence or on the same facts for any other offence in 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.
5. In the present case the second charge-sheet has been filed after the acquittal of the applicant with the consent of the State Government for distinct offence in which the separate charge might have been made against him at the formal trial, under Sub-section (1) of Section 220, Cr.PC. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the provision of Section 300(2) will apply. Learned Counsel for the applicant relied on a judgment Rafiq Khan and Anr. v. Jamila Bi (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case because in this case there was no permission obtained from the State Government for filing complaint or charge-sheet as per provision under Section 300(2), Cr.PC. This judgment is not at all related to the provision of Section 300(2), Cr.PC,. therefore, the same has absolutely no application and relevancy in the present case.
6. In Criminal Revision No. 135/2002 the Trial Court has framed the charge for the offences under Sections 419, 467 and 472, IPC by impugned order dated 25-9-2001.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity committed by the Trial Court in framing charge against the applicant.
8. Consequently, there are no merits in both these revisions and the same are accordingly dismissed.