Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
Article 20 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Emperor vs Anant Narayan Kulkarni on 17 July, 1944
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also referred to the case of -- 'Emperor v. Anant Narayan', AIR 1945 Bom 413 (E). That was a case where the accused was charged once under Sections 409 and 466, Penal Code, for having misappropriated certain sums of money. There was a second complaint in which he was charged tinder Section 409 with criminal, breach of, trust in respect of certain sums on two different dates. In the trial for the first two offences, the accused was acquitted. There was a second trial for the second offence for misappropriation of certain sums of money, as I have said, upon two different dates. Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court in the circumstances of the case, expressed the opinion that even though the plea of asteroids acquit under Section 403 was not technically available to the accused, the principle of it was available to him in the interest of justice and that the accused should not be tried again in respect of the third offence and should be acquitted. The facts of the case make it clear that the two offences committed also were of the same nature. They were not distinct offences except in, the sense that they were committed on different dates. It was in that view of the matter that their Lordships held that it would be unjust to try the accused person in respect of the latter offence and should be acquitted.
Kashi Nath Singh vs Emperor on 12 October, 1933
The next case relied upon is a decision at the Calcutta High Court in the case of -- 'Sidh, Nath v. Emperor', AIR 1929 Cal 457 (F) wherein their Lordships took the view that there might be cases in which though Section 403, Cr. P. C. does not strictly apply yet on the principle underlying that section a second trial should not be allowed to proceed. In that case a challan was submitted against the accused that he had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a gross sum but the trial was held with respect to only three particular items out of it, a second trial with respect to three other items included in the gross sum was held to be not proper and the principle of Section 403(1) was thus applied.
Section 29 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Chinna Kaliappa Gounden And Anr. on 21 November, 1905
In these circumstances, we think the principle enunciated by Subramania J. in -- 'Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa', 29 Mad 126 (El) applies to the facts of this case and that second trial of the accused should be prevented."
Gauri Shankar vs Emperor on 28 January, 1918
4. Learned counsel, however, referred to certain decisions in support of his argument that if the same state of Facts were involved in a trial which has come to a completion ending in acquittal or conviction, and a second trial is sought to be launched, the second trial must be barred inasmuch as there might be danger of the accused person being harassed twice over in respect of an offence with which he could have been charged in the previous trial. The first decision relied upon is in the case of -- 'Gauri Shankar Rai v. Emperor' AIR 1947 Pat 290 (A) wherein a single Judge of this Court held that where the accused persons were tried under Sections 147 and 323, Penal Code, and acquitted by a competent Magistrate, they could not be tried again under Section 188, Penal Code, for disobeying an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C., on the same facts and the same occurrence, Learned counsel lays emphasis upon this observation of Ray J. :
A.M. Rangachariar vs Venkataswami Chetty on 10 September, 1934
"Except some observation in -- 'Rangachariar
v. Venkataswami Chetti', AIR 1935 Mad 56(2) at
pp. 57-58 (B) and -- 'Fatten Mahomed v. Em
peror', AIR 1926 Lah 639 (1) (C), the other cases
might not be strictly in point but they illustrate
the view that I am making out, namely, that the
intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 403 is
that an accused should not be vexed with more
than one trial on the same facts."
Manick Chand Agarwalla vs The State on 13 February, 1952
The same view was expressed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of 'Manick Chand Agarwalla v. The State', AIR 1952 Cal 730 (J). It appears, however, from the facts of both these cases that their Lordships both of the Judicial Committee and the Calcutta High Court, were not considering the propriety of the retrial but the propriety of the conviction at the retrial after an acquittal was recorded on the same set of facts in another trial. The question of 'res judicata proveritate accipitur' was considered in that context.
1