Karnataka High Court
Sri. C R Rajendra Babu vs State By Cbi/Bs & Fc on 24 January, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24™ DAY OF JANUARY, 2012...» BEFORE: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE.. -- CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. No. 82 OF 2011 C/w.. ; ane : CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. Bi EOF. 2012" BETWEEN : C.R. Rajendra Babu, S/o. Late C. Rangaswany Haid... Aged about 64 yeare Fo R/at No.11, III Main Road, Horamavu Main Road, nS Banaswadi, . , : Bangalore~ ~560_ 042. cel ... PETITIONER/S . a TCCMMON IN BOTH THE CASES] [By M/s. Kiran S. "gavaiae" Chandrashekare K., Advs.] RD : State by cBI/BS © & FC., Beilary Road, ) Bangalore. oS ... RESPONDENT/S rs [COMMON IN BOTH THE CASES] By Sri--C.H, Jadhav, Adv.] wee These Cril.R.Ps. are filed u/Section 397 r/w 401 er.P.C petitioner praying to set aside the order dt: 23.12.10 passed by the XXI Addi.c.c. & S.J., and Spl .Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore in Sp1.C.C.Nos.68/07 & 67/07 respectively. a 7 5 4 2 Cri.RPs 82/11 pf g f4 C fw Si/il These Crl.R.Ps. having been heard and reserved for Judgment, this day the Court pronounced. the following: ws ORDER
The petitioner has challenged - the order rejecting his request to 'dismiss. the Special 2.0, Nos.67/2007 and 68/2007 regiatered For che offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC r/w. Sections 1344) "and (2) of the Prevention of. "corruption" act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act. of 19387].
2. ; three charge-dheets 'came to be registered against the petitioner ih Special C.Cc. Nos.61/2007, 67/2007 and 63/2067 "fox the charges aforesaid and a they pértain to distinct and different 3 periods viz', " 20.42.1995 to 28.10.1996, 14.11.1996 to 15.10.1997 "ane 03.11.1997 to 23.07.1998. A request . was made by 'the petitioner under Section 220 Cr.P.c.
- 'to: club all these cases and it was granted partly, a "oxdéring the joint trial of the Special C.c.
"Nos . 67/2007 and 68/2007. However, Special C.c. 'No. 61/2007 was tried separately and the trial Court had convicted the petitioner and also ordered the sentence. The trial of other 2 cases were commenced and at this stage, the petitioner filed van application before the trial Court under section 300 Cr.P.C. stating that as he has been now convicted in:
Special C.C. No.61/2007 for the aforesaid offences, he cannot be tried and punished forthe said offence"
again both in view of Section 200 Cr. Pic: and under Article 20(2) of the Constitutien of India.
3. The trial Court heard.on the application of the petitioner and rejected the same. Aggrieved by the common Order, the present revision petitions have been filed. ~~.
4, Ihave heard, the Learned counsel fer the , petitioner and: also the learned High Court Government. Pleader.
BL (The learned counsel for the petitioner ... Placed 'reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla "Venkateswara Rao & anr., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 788, wherein the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Apex Court held , . ban A Cx RPs 82/11 ; Oq ft C/w. 81/11 that the said appellant cannot be tried or punished on the same facts for the offence punishable "inder Section 420 IPC or any other provision of IPC or aay other statute though the offences are different, but -
the facts are the same. Tt further held. that Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. applies and consequently, the > prosecution under Section 428 IPC was barred by the said provision.
He also relied upon" the \ decision reported in (2011) 1 Supreme 'Court. Cases. (Cri) 22 [Monica Bedi Vs. State of andhra Pradesh]; wherein the Apex Court took into ednsideration article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and held as follows:
| "article 20(2) embodies protection " against™a second trial and conviction "+ for the .same offence. The fundamental "hight "guaranteed under Article 20(2) 'as its roots in the common law maxim nenio 'debet his vexari - a man shall not be brought into danger for one and the "game offence more than once. If a person is charged against for the same offence, he can plead, as a complete Gefence, his former conviction, or as it is technically expressed, take the plea cf autrefois convict. In order for the protection of Article Z20(2) to be invoked there must be a prosecution | as well as punishment in respect of the:
same offence before a court of law 'of | competent jurisdiction or a tribenal.-- The proceedings contemplated Are in. the. nature of criminal proceedings ™and- prosecution in this wontext "would mean. initiation of criminal -. proceedings: in the statute."
Lastly, He placed reliance. on. the decision of the Apex Court' teported in 2003 AIR SCW 217 [State of Rajasthan Vs. Bat Singh and others], wherein the Apex Court took into consideration Article Z20(2) as stated in "the aforesdid decision and held as follows:
| ONAEE. © 20 (2) of the Constitution " provides " that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. To attract _ applicability of Art.20(2) there must be a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence for which the accused has been prosecuted and punished previously. A subsequent trial or a prosecution and punishment +S ¢ Bs b as) O ¢ bet ISD a fut d Cfw. 81/4 are not barred if the ingredients of the two offences are distinct. The --
rule against double jeopardy is stated. in the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. The manifestation ©.
of this rule is to be found ctontained in S$.26 of the General Clauses "Act, 1897. $.300 of the Code of Criminal | Procedure, 1973 and S. 41 of the. Indian Penal Code." -- - | So, placing reliance or these decisions, it is the contention of the. learned coithsel that the petitioner has, been. convicted in Special C.c. No. 61/07 for "the aforezaid "offences and therefore, as the charge sheet and' the facts therein are for the same offence, he. cannot be tried again on the 7 pinciple:.of. double jeopardy.
"He. "Tt is not in dispute that in Special C.c.
No .61/2007, the petitioner was tried for the "aferesaid offences committed in between 20.11.1995 "to. 28.10.1996. So, in the said case, the Court "vhefore conviction took into facts and circumstances "for the period aforesaid. But, in the cases now pending before the trial Court, the facts and circumstances are for the period from 14.11.1996 to 4 va _f mene ~ ~ AA a4 Cri.RPs 62/11 c/ 24/174 Ay Bi /il 15.10.1997 and 03.11.1997 to 23.07.1998 aforesaid. Though the offences are same, the facts, date -of offence, period and other circumstances relating to.
the said two cases are for a different pariod. ~ The' principle of double jeopardy does not. apply in case if the trial is for the .same Offence, but for a different period. So, in the decisions referred to supra, the facts are 'different, "In these circumstances, this court is of'.a considered view that the principle of double jeopardy does not apply in a case where the -cffence committed is for a different period "and on different facts. It is because of this idason that, the Court below rejected the request'. of the 'pétitioner to discharge him on the principle of double jeopardy. I do not find any such .ercor. or "illegality in the common order passed by 'the Court. below. In that view of the matter, as "there "is ne' merit in these revisions, they are "dismissed accordingly.
Asm*