2022 (12) TMI 1415 - SC - Indian Laws

Misappropriation of public funds - making false entries in the cash book and misappropriating money - misappropriation and falsification of accounts - sub-section (2) of Section 300 of the CrPC. - HELD THAT - Section 300 of the CrPC embodies the general rule which affirms the validity of the pleas of autrefois acquit (previously acquitted) and autrefois convict (previously convicted). Sub-section (1) of Section 300 lays down the rule of double jeopardy and sub-sections (2) to (5) deal with the exceptions. Accordingly so long as an order of acquittal or conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction remains in force the person cannot be tried for the same offence for which he was tried earlier or for any other offence arising from the same fact situation except the cases dealt in with under sub-sections (2) to (5) of the section - Section 300 of the CrPC is based on the maxim nemo deber bis vexari si costest curiae quod sit pro una et eadem causa which means that a person cannot be tried a second time for an offence which is involved in an offence with which he was previously charged. The whole basis for this provision is that the first trial should have been before court of competent jurisdiction. There must have been a trial of the accused that is to say that there should have been a hearing and determination or adjudication of the case on merits. Where the accused has not been tried and as such convicted or acquitted Section 300(1) shall not be applicable - Section 300 of the CrPC bars the trial of a person not only for the same offence but also for any other offence on the same facts in Thakur Ram vs. State of Bihar 1965 (11) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT . The Trial Court has held that in the present case the allegation is that after conducting the auction of coconuts and half filled grains two-thirds of the amount collected from the successful bidder was not remitted to the treasury however in the earlier cases the allegations were that the accused misappropriated some amount to be paid to the proprietor of Agricultural Marketing Corporation Kozhikode Kerala State Coir marketing Corporation Kozhikode from the State Seed Farm Perambra by forging and falsifying records - it can be said that the present cases pertain to the same set of facts and are in respect of same offences for the same period committed in the same capacity as the previous three cases wherein the appellant herein was already prosecuted in the year 1999. The core allegation in all these five cases pertains to misappropriation by making false entries in the cash book. The allegation of the prosecution that two-thirds of the auction amount was not remitted to the treasury would be covered under the allegations of misappropriation of funds that the appellant has already been prosecuted for in the year 1999. The appellant is right in contending that the charge in the first three cases were framed on 17.08.1999 which is much after the audit and the prosecution would have been well aware of the misappropriation in respect of the present cases on 17.08.1999. The High Court was not justified in affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court - the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not right in convicting and sentencing the appellant herein and therefore the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Double Jeopardy
2. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197(1) of CrPC
3. Entrustment and Misappropriation under Section 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Double Jeopardy:

Discussion:
The appellant contended that the prosecution in the current cases was barred by the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC. The appellant had already been prosecuted in three prior cases (C.C. Nos. 12, 13, and 14 of 1999) involving similar allegations of misappropriation of public funds and falsification of records during the same period.

Legal Principles:
- Article 20(2) of the Constitution: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
- Section 300 of the CrPC: A person who has been tried by a competent court and convicted or acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence or any other offence based on the same facts.

Findings:
The Court found that the allegations in the present cases were part of the same transaction as the previous cases. The misappropriations were committed during the same period and in the same capacity as an Agricultural Officer. The core allegation in all five cases was the misappropriation of funds by making false entries in the cash book. Therefore, the prosecution in the current cases was barred by the principle of double jeopardy.

2. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197(1) of CrPC:

Discussion:
The appellant argued that being a public servant, the prosecution required prior sanction from the State Government under Section 197(1) of the CrPC, which was not obtained.

Legal Principles:
- Section 197(1) of the CrPC: Sanction is required for the prosecution of a public servant for any act done in the discharge of official duty.

Findings:
The Court observed that the appellant was dismissed from service before the filing of the chargesheet, thus no sanction was required at that stage. However, the Court noted that even if the allegations in the current cases were distinct from the previous ones, the prosecution had failed to obtain the necessary sanction from the State Government, rendering the trial unlawful.

3. Entrustment and Misappropriation under Section 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:

Discussion:
The appellant was convicted for misappropriating funds while serving as an Agricultural Officer. The prosecution alleged that the appellant failed to remit auction proceeds to the treasury and misappropriated the amounts for personal gain.

Legal Principles:
- Section 409 IPC: Criminal breach of trust by a public servant.
- Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act: Dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to a public servant.

Findings:
The Court re-appreciated the evidence and found inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The evidence did not conclusively prove that the appellant had control over the misappropriated funds or that he had fraudulently misappropriated them. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of entrustment and misappropriation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 24 and 25 of 2003 and set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. The appeals were allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.