1959 (10) TMI 34 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Competency of the Special Judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act.
3. Binding nature and effect of prior judgments.
4. Principle of autrefois acquit (double jeopardy).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The appellant argued that under Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person once tried and acquitted for an offense cannot be tried again for the same offense or on the same facts. The appellant contended that his previous acquittal by the Special Judge, Mr. S. C. Dutt Gupta, should bar any subsequent trial for the same offenses. The court acknowledged that if the initial acquittal was by a court of competent jurisdiction, it would indeed bar a retrial under Section 403.

2. Competency of the Special Judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act:
The High Court initially held that Section 4(1) of the Act was ultra vires, which led to the conclusion that the Special Judge, Mr. S. C. Dutt Gupta, was not a court of competent jurisdiction. This decision was later challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Bajoria v. The State of West Bengal, which declared Section 4(1) of the Act intra vires, thereby validating the jurisdiction of the Special Judge. The Supreme Court in the present case concluded that the acquittal by Mr. S. C. Dutt Gupta was by a court of competent jurisdiction, and thus, the acquittal was binding unless set aside in appeal.

3. Binding Nature and Effect of Prior Judgments:
The appellant faced a significant hurdle due to the judgment of Chunder, J., who had previously ruled that the Special Judge, Mr. S. C. Dutt Gupta, was not a court of competent jurisdiction, thus rendering the acquittal ineffective. The appellant argued that this judgment should not preclude him from invoking Section 403, especially in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Kedar Nath Bajoria's case. The Supreme Court noted that final judgments, even if erroneous, retain their binding force unless lawfully set aside. However, the majority opinion held that the erroneous view of the vires of Section 4(1) of the Act by Chunder, J., should not preclude the appellant from obtaining relief.

4. Principle of Autrefois Acquit (Double Jeopardy):
The principle of autrefois acquit, codified in Section 403, was central to the appellant's defense. The Supreme Court emphasized that a lawful acquittal by a competent court is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties. The court cited precedents affirming that a verdict of acquittal, once pronounced by a competent court after a lawful trial, cannot be challenged in subsequent proceedings. The majority opinion concluded that retrying the appellant would place him in jeopardy a second time, contravening Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Calcutta High Court that directed the complaint to proceed in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The proceedings against the appellant were quashed based on the principle of autrefois acquit and the validation of the Special Judge's jurisdiction by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Bajoria's case. The court held that retrying the appellant would violate Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as his initial acquittal was by a court of competent jurisdiction and had never been lawfully set aside.