Section 300 CrPC Bars The Trial of a Person Not Only For The Same Offence But Also For Any Other Offence On The Same Facts: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that Section 300 CrPC bars the trial of a person not only for the same offence but also for any other offence on the same facts.The court was hearing a Criminal Appeal that was filed assailing the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal Nos. 947 and 948 of 2009 by which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed...
The Supreme Court has reiterated that Section 300 CrPC bars the trial of a person not only for the same offence but also for any other offence on the same facts.
The court was hearing a Criminal Appeal that was filed assailing the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal Nos. 947 and 948 of 2009 by which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C. No. 24 and 25 of 2003 by the Trial Court had been upheld by dismissing the aforesaid appeals and consequently confirming the conviction of the appellant herein.
The Impugned Judgment
The Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 27.04.2009 in both the aforesaid cases had convicted the appellant for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rupees Two Thousand and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was further convicted for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rupees Two Thousand and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Brief Facts of the Case
The allegation against the accused was that while the accused was working as Agricultural Officer, State Seed Farm, Perambra, for the period 31.05.1991 to 31.05.1994, he abused his official position as a public servant and committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated amounts from the auctioning of coconuts during the period from 27.04.1992 to 25.08.1992, by not remitting the same to the Sub-Treasury, Perambra.
As a result of which a surprise inspection was carried out in the State Seed Farm, Perambra and the inspection team found that the cash book was not properly maintained and that the Agricultural Officer received amounts from the Treasury. The inspection report was submitted to the Director of Agriculture. On the basis of the said report, an enquiry was conducted by the vigilance department and a criminal case was registered against the accused. On completion of investigation, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted three reports and three criminal cases were registered against the accused under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and Sections 409 and 477A of IPC. The Accounts Officer conducted an audit in the State Seed Farm, pertaining to the period from 31.05.1991 to 31.05.1994 and gave a report. On the basis of the same, the two cases, out of which this appeal arises, were registered against the appellant.
Arguments of the Appellant
The stand that the appellant took before the Supreme Court assailing the judgment of the Trial Court and later upheld by the High Court, is as follows:
During the period in question, the Appellant had additional charge of some other farms and had to heavily depend on his subordinates at the office to conduct the affairs of the State Seed Farm, Perambra.
The Appellant is a public servant. Section 197(1) of the CrPC requires sanction of the State Government before taking cognizance of offence against public servants such as the accused.
The entire prosecution proceedings in the present cases are barred by Section 300(1) of the CrPC which incorporates the principle of double jeopardy. The Appellant was already prosecuted in the year 1999 for the charges of misappropriating public funds entrusted to him, when C.C. No.12 to 14/1999 were filed against him. The core allegation in all the five cases is one and the same i.e., making false entries in the cash book and misappropriating money.
The FIR in the present cases was filed on 03.12.2001 after the appellant was dismissed from the service and the judgment of the Trial Court was passed. The allegations/offences in the present two cases could have been framed at the previous trial and the appellant herein could have been tried for the same along with the trial of the earlier three cases.
If the Appellant was to be tried again for the present offences, previous consent of the State Government was necessary as is mandated under sub-section (2) of Section 300 of the CrPC.
The conviction of the appellant herein under Section 409 of the IPC has no legal basis since the prosecution could not prove the most vital ingredient of the said offence, namely, entrustment of goods or dominion over property.
The conviction under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act is not made out since the prosecution failed to prove that the property was entrusted to him or was under his control, and that the same was fraudulently or dishonestly misappropriated by him.
Discussion on Double Jeopardy
The court held, "Articles 20 to 22 deal with personal liberty of citizens and others. Article 20(2) expressly provides that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence, more than once. The protection against double jeopardy is also supplemented by statutory provisions contained in Section 300 of the CrPC, Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 71 of the IPC and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897."
Discussing the relevance of Section 300 CrpC, the court held, "Section 300 of the CrPC places a bar wherein, a person who has already been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence arising out of the same facts, and has either been acquitted or convicted of such offence cannot be tried again for the same offence as well as on the same facts for any other offence as long as such acquittal or conviction remains in force."
Judgment
Relating the mandate of Section 300 CrPC with the facts of the instant case, the court, in the words of Justice BV. Nagarathna, held, "The appellant herein was earlier charged for offences under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and Sections 409 and 477A of the IPC and was convicted in two cases and acquitted in one case. The present two cases arise out of the same set of facts and the same transaction as that in the previous three cases wherein the appellant was tried and convicted/acquitted respectively. For an offence to be considered as the 'same offence' as the last offence, it is necessary to show that the offences are not distinct and the ingredients of the offences are identical. The previous charge as well as the present charge is for the same period of misappropriation. The matter of offences in all the previous three cases and the present case are the same and are said to be committed in the course of the same transaction while holding the one and same post of Agricultural Officer by the appellant."
The court further held that, "The appellant is right in contending that the charge in the first three cases were framed on 17.08.1999 which is much after the audit and the prosecution would have been well aware of the misappropriation in respect of the present cases on 17.08.1999."
The court further remarked that, "It has already been observed that the allegations/offences in the instant cases are the same as the allegations/offences in the previous three cases, therefore as per the mandate under Section 300(2) of the CrPC, the consent of the State Government is necessary. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the allegations are different in present cases from those in the previous cases, the prosecution has failed to obtain the prior consent of the State Government necessary to prosecute the accused-appellant and therefore the trial in the instant case is unlawful."
The judgment was delivered by the division bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna.
Case title: T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala | CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.187-188 OF 2017
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1039
For Appellant(s) Mr. Adolf Mathew,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR; For Respondent(s) Mr. C.K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.T.,Adv. Ms. Meena K. Poulose,Adv.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 300- Section 300 of the CrPC places a bar wherein, a person who has already been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence arising out of the same facts, and has either been acquitted or convicted of such offence cannot be tried again for the same offence as well as on the same facts for any other offence as long as such acquittal or conviction remains in force.
Constitution of India 1950- Article 20(2)-Articles 20 to 22 deal with personal liberty of citizens and others. Article 20(2) expressly provides that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence, more than once. The protection against double jeopardy is also supplemented by statutory provisions contained in Section 300 of the CrPC, Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 71 of the IPC and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.