1967 (9) TMI 141 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in barring subsequent trials.
2. Legality and propriety of subsequent trials for criminal breach of trust involving different amounts misappropriated during the same period.
3. Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561A of the CrPC to quash proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in barring subsequent trials:
The petitioner argued that his previous conviction in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1963 for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) should bar subsequent prosecutions for similar offenses committed during the same period. Section 403(1) of the CrPC was cited, which states that a person who has been tried and convicted or acquitted for an offense cannot be tried again for the same offense or on the same facts for any other offense for which a different charge might have been made under Section 236 or for which he might have been convicted under Section 237.

The court held that Section 403(1) does not apply in this case because the petitioner is not being tried for the same offense for which he was convicted in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1963. The offenses in the new cases involve different sums of money that were not included in the original gross sum of Rs. 583. Thus, the subsequent prosecutions are independent and do not constitute double jeopardy.

2. Legality and propriety of subsequent trials for criminal breach of trust involving different amounts misappropriated during the same period:
The court examined whether the subsequent trials are legal and whether they should be allowed to proceed. It was argued that the principle underlying Section 403 should be extended to bar the subsequent trials. The court referred to various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Ranchhod Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which clarified that Section 222(2) of the CrPC is an exception to the general rule that each distinct offense should be tried separately.

The court noted that while the legality of the second trial is upheld, the interests of justice might require quashing the proceedings. The court distinguished between the legality and propriety of the second trial, emphasizing that the second trial is not illegal but may be undesirable under certain circumstances.

3. Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561A of the CrPC to quash proceedings:
The court acknowledged its inherent powers under Section 561A of the CrPC to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, which affirmed the High Court's power to quash proceedings in appropriate cases.

The court concluded that the interests of justice require quashing the pending prosecutions against the petitioner. The petitioner had already faced a lengthy trial, served a sentence, and paid a fine. The amounts involved in the new cases had been recovered, and further trials would subject the petitioner to unnecessary hardship and humiliation.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and quashed the proceedings in cases Nos. 42 of 1966 and 43 of 1966 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon. The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 561A of the CrPC to secure the ends of justice, emphasizing that while the subsequent prosecutions were not legally barred, they were not necessary given the circumstances.