2014 (5) TMI 1147 - HC - Indian Laws

Re-trial of the petitioner permissible as already been acquitted - Section 300 Cr.P.C - NDPS Act - Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence - learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was strenuously arguing that because the present petitioner has been acquitted he could not be re-tried - Held that - I may point out that the above contention does not appear holding good. As soon as the very trial has been found not as per the provisions of the law and as such outside the jurisdiction of the competent court the order of acquittal could be of no effect. Merely because a Sessions Judge was a Special Judge was not creating competence in him to try the offence. It has always to be considered in light of the fact that no other trial procedure could be followed except the set of provisions contained in Chapter-XVIII in the light of Section 36C of the NDPS Act while trying an accused or an offence. As soon as the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge Muzaffarpur was found having not followed the provision of Chapter-XVIII Cr.P.C. the trial was very much in inherent lack of jurisdiction and as such the acquittal could not be supported and it could not accrue any benefit of such acquittal to any accused like the present petitioner. Present petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of order for re-trial passed by Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge.
2. Interpretation of Section 300 Cr.P.C. regarding re-trial after acquittal.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court in conducting a trial under NDPS Act and Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought the quashing of an order for re-trial passed by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge based on a previous judgment. The case involved the interception of a vehicle carrying contraband ganja, leading to a trial where the petitioner was acquitted, but a co-accused was convicted. The previous judgment highlighted procedural errors, leading to the direction for re-trial. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing against re-trial after acquittal.

2. The judgment delved into the interpretation of Section 300 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that a person acquitted or convicted of an offence cannot be tried again for the same offence while the acquittal or conviction remains in force. The key point was the definition of "trial" and "competent jurisdiction," stressing that a trial must adhere to the prescribed legal procedures. The judgment cited precedents to support the view that a trial conducted with a wrong procedure lacks jurisdiction, thus not entitling the accused to protection under Section 300 Cr.P.C.

3. The analysis focused on the jurisdiction of the Court in trying offences under the NDPS Act and Cr.P.C. It highlighted that a Special Court under the NDPS Act, being a Court of Sessions, must follow the procedures outlined in Chapter XVIII of the Cr.P.C. The judgment underscored that deviation from the specified procedures results in a lack of jurisdiction, rendering the trial unlawful. Precedents and legal provisions were cited to reinforce the importance of adhering to the prescribed trial procedures for maintaining the Court's jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the acquittal based on a trial with procedural errors could not stand, as it lacked jurisdiction. The order for re-trial was upheld, and the Court directed expedited proceedings, clarifying the necessity of following the correct legal procedures for maintaining the Court's jurisdiction in trying offences under the NDPS Act.