2011 (2) TMI 1257 - SC - Companies Law

Whether appellant was already convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and hence he could not be again tried or punished on the same facts under section 420 or any other provision of IPC or any other statute Held that - section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. While Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts. section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies. Consequently the prosecution under section 420 IPC was barred by section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India vs. section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.
- Application of section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. in a case with different offenses but same facts.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court involved a crucial interpretation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and section 300(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The appellant had been convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and argued that being tried or punished again on the same facts under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was impermissible. The Court examined the difference between Article 20(2) of the Constitution and section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. The former prohibits prosecution and punishment for the same offense more than once, while the latter extends to not being tried again for the same offense or even a different offense but on the same facts.

In this case, although the offenses were different, the facts remained the same. The Court applied section 300(1) of Cr.P.C., which is broader in scope than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. It was held that since the facts were identical, the prosecution under section 420 IPC was barred by the principles enshrined in section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, emphasizing the importance of not subjecting individuals to multiple trials for the same set of facts, even if different offenses are involved.