Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: criminal procedure code 300 in Vijay Parekh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2020Matching Fragments
(Passed on 11.05.2020) Per Vivek Rusia, J:
This petition has been referred to the Division Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for answering the following question of law:
"Whether judgment/order pronounced in respect of a complaint governing provisions of Factories Act and Rules prohibit separate trial in respect of offences under the Indian Penal Code in view of section 300 Cr.P.C and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India?"
Learned Single Judge has held that the accused Vijay Parekh was convicted under section 88 of the Act of 1948 read with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1962, 73J, 7A & 72 of the Act of 1948 read with section 92 for the acts and omissions viz, (i) not sending the information of accident to the Factor Inspector (ii) running the factory without obtaining appropriate license (iii) not keeping the attendance register of labourers (iv) not providing adequate training to the labourers from firce & (v) not adopting safety mechanisms in the factory. The aforesaid acts and omissions are absolutely different from the specific wording of section 304-A of the IPC which specifies "causing a death by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide." The special Act i.e. the Act of 1948 does not encompass the offence committed due to rash and negligent act. The provisions of section 300 Cr.P.C are applicable when the Presiding Officer was in a position to frame charge under the provisions of the I.P.C along with the provisions of the Act of 1948 but no documents pertaining to the offence under the I.P.C were available with him at that point of time, therefore, neither the provisions of section 300 Cr.P.C nor the principle of double jeopardy could not be applicable in the case, hence disagreeing with the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Neeraj Verma (supra) requested the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench on administrative side to answer the question of law as mentioned hereinabove.
8. Shri Atre, learned counsel further submitted that learned Single Judge while differing the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Neeraj Verma (supra) had not considered the scope of section 210 of the Cr.P.C which provides that during the course of enquiry or trial if it comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate that an investigation by the Police is in progress in relation to the offence which is subject matter of the enquiry or trial held by him, he shall stay the proceeding and call for the report, and if the report is made available, the Magistrate shall enquire or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the Police report as if both the cases were instituted on the Police report. Since the aforesaid procedure has not taken place in the present case and the petitioner has been convicted under the provisions of the Act of 1948 and the Rules of 1962 by the competent Court, therefore, as per the provisions of section 300 of the Cr.P.C the petitioner is not liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence as the petitioner is having the protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. He further argued that although there was no prohibition under the Act of 1948 for prosecution under the I.P.C but by virtue of prohibition under section 300 Cr.P.C and Article 20(2) of the Constituion of India, the present trial for the offence punishable under the I,P.C could not be proceeded and liable to the quashed.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
13. Since the prosecution agencies in the Act of 1948 and the Cr.P.C are different, therefore, it was not doable for the Magistrate to know about the registration of the FIR by the Police. Since the petitioner was common in both the prosecution, therefore, it was the duty of the petitioner to inform the learned Magistrate about the registration of FIR against him because under sub-section (2) of section 210 Cr.P.C, it was mandatory for the Magistrate to inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report, therefore, the petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding registration of FIR against him before the Magistrate and managed to obtain a lesser punishment by way of fine and now he is trying to take the advantage of section 300 of the Cr.P.C. 14 It is correct that under section 300 of the Cr.P.C 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. Section 300 Cr.P.C is reproduced below: