9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the trial and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, were barred by the provisions of Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of the Court and Jurisdiction: The appellant was initially tried and acquitted by Mr. N.C. Ganguly, Judge, Birbhum Special Court, on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The appellant contended that his subsequent trial and conviction by Mr. T. Bhattacharjee, who succeeded Mr. Ganguly, were barred by Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prevents a person from being tried again for the same offence after acquittal by a competent court. 2. Legal Principle of Autrefois Acquit: Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure embodies the principle of autrefois acquit, which states that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence if acquitted by a competent court. This principle is also incorporated in Article 20 of the Constitution. The defense of autrefois acquit does not apply if the initial court lacked jurisdiction, as held in the case of Thomas Ewart Flower v. R. 3. Jurisdictional Error and Nullity of Acquittal: Mr. Ganguly, influenced by decisions such as A.P. Misra v. The State, believed he lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence due to procedural issues, leading him to acquit the appellant. However, the Supreme Court held that only a court competent to initiate and carry on proceedings can make a valid order of acquittal. An order of acquittal by a court that considers itself incompetent is a nullity and does not bar subsequent trials. 4. Completion of Trial and Validity of Acquittal: The appellant argued that since Mr. Ganguly had framed charges, examined witnesses, and recorded the appellant's examination, the trial was complete, and the acquittal should stand. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that a trial must be conducted by a court competent to take cognizance of the offence. Since Mr. Ganguly believed he lacked jurisdiction, the proceedings before him did not constitute a valid trial, and his order of acquittal was not legally binding. 5. Withdrawal of Prosecution and Section 494 of the Code: The appellant contended that under Section 494 of the Code, the only way to end proceedings after a charge is framed is through acquittal or conviction. The Supreme Court clarified that this applies only when the charge is framed by a competent court. Since Mr. Ganguly was not competent to take cognizance, Section 494 was not applicable. 6. Nature of Proceedings and Order of Acquittal: The Supreme Court emphasized that for proceedings to amount to a trial, they must be before a competent court. Since Mr. Ganguly's court was deemed incompetent, the proceedings before him did not constitute a trial, and his order could not be considered an acquittal under Section 403(1). The order was effectively a nullity, putting a stop to the proceedings without barring a subsequent trial. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the trial and conviction of the appellant by Mr. Bhattacharjee were valid in law, as the initial proceedings before Mr. Ganguly did not constitute a valid trial. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by Mr. Bhattacharjee.
|
