Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 is that the Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India on the same day lodged a complaint to the respondent for a similar offence against V.Kannan, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Thiruvannamalai Branch for identical misdeeds and a case in RCMA12010A0022 registered and investigated which lead to filing of six charge sheets in C.C.Nos.4, 5, 6 , 7, 9 and 10 of 2012. The petitioner/A2 is only a Salesman at M/s.Ramajayam Tractors, Tiruvannamalai and the petitioner only canvassed for the sale as per the direction of his employer. Further, the petitioner not acted independently and he is not a beneficiary. The petitioner earlier convicted in C.C.Nos.4, 5, 9 and 11 of 2012. The petitioner preferred appeals before this Court in Crl.A.No.680 of 2018, Crl.A.No.682 of 2018, Cr.A.Nos.683 of 2018 and Crl.A.No.684 of 2018. This Court by judgment dated 10.10.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) modified the conviction and sentence and partly allowed the appeals in Crl.A.No.680 of 2018, Crl.A.No.682 of 2018 and Cr.A.No.683 of 2018. Further, this Court by judgment dated 10.10.2023 allowed the appeal in Crl.A.No.684 of 2018 by setting aside the conviction and sentence. Challenging the judgment passed by this Court by modifying the sentence, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court in SLP(Crl.).Nos.4530, 15951 and 2426 of 2024. She would submit petitioner already convicted for similar cause of action, now for the same offence and for the same transaction, the petitioner is being tried again in C.C.No.52 of 2011 and the witnesses are almost the same and facts are identical. She would further submit that since the petitioner already tried and convicted in a previous trial for same set of facts forming part of a single transaction. The petitioner cannot be again prosecuted as per Section 300 Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of Constitution of India. The Trial Court ought to have clubbed and tried together all the cases finding all arises out of the same transaction as per Sections 219 and 220 of Cr.P.C. Further, the charge under Prevention of Corruption Act simplicitor is legally untenable. The petitioner is not a public servant and he is a private individual and does not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) come within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial Court failed to consider that the above proceedings arise of same series of acts and continuing conspiracy, there cannot be separate conspiracy for each case since the same modus operandi is projected against the petitioner and the witnesses are all common. Since the petitioner already tried in previous trial in C.C.Nos.4, 5, 9 and 11 of 2012 and convicted by the Trial Court and the conviction is in subsistence for the same offence, second prosecution not permitted in view of Section 300 Cr.P.C. She further submitted that Section 300 Cr.P.C. is based on the maxim nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eadem cause. Thus Section 300 Cr.P.C. bars the trial of a person not only for the same offence but also for any other offence on the same set of facts. Hence the above case is barred, Double Jeopardy.

6.He further submitted that as per Section 300 Cr.P.C, it is clear that a person who is once tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:04:12 pm ) acquittal remains in force, not liable to be tried again for the same offence on the same facts. In this case, the facts are totally different, without supply of Tractor and Tillers, invoices and sale receipts created with false particulars. The agricultural land documents, revenue records, bills, invoices, all forged in different names. The beneficiaries are different. The petitioner participated in Trial in C.C.Nos.4, 5, 9 and 11 of 2012., during trial the petitioner not raised any objections of similarity of case, filed any petition to try all cases as one or to try simultaneously, now after conviction, dismissal of appeal filed the above petition to protract the trial. In this case, the trial is at the advanced stage. At this stage, the present petition has been filed. Hence, prayed for dismissal.