9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the Court in the earlier prosecution. 2. Validity of the sanction for prosecution. 3. Applicability of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 4. Common Law rule against double jeopardy. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of the Court in the earlier prosecution: The primary issue was whether the earlier prosecution of the appellant was conducted before a Court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant was initially prosecuted for hoarding and profiteering under the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, 1943. The Presidency Magistrate acquitted the appellant, citing the invalidity of the sanction for prosecution. The High Court later set aside these acquittals, prompting the appellant to argue that Section 403(1) CrPC barred the fresh prosecutions. However, the High Court ruled that the earlier prosecution was null and void due to the lack of valid sanction, thus the Court was not competent to try the case. 2. Validity of the sanction for prosecution: The sanction for the appellant's prosecution was granted by C.C. Desai, Controller-General of Civil Supplies, under a Government of India notification. The learned Magistrate, influenced by a High Court decision in Revisional Application No. 191 of 1945, concluded that the prosecution was incompetent because the sanction did not prove that the officer was not below the rank of a District Magistrate. The High Court affirmed this view, holding that the prosecution was invalid without a proper sanction, rendering the earlier trial a nullity. 3. Applicability of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Section 403(1) CrPC states that a person acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be tried again for the same offence. However, Section 403(4) allows for a subsequent trial if the initial Court was not competent. The High Court determined that the initial prosecution lacked a valid sanction, making the Court incompetent. Consequently, the appellant's acquittal was not by a competent Court, and Section 403(1) did not bar the fresh prosecutions. 4. Common Law rule against double jeopardy: The appellant invoked the Common Law principle that no person should be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offence. The Board held that this principle applies only if the first trial was before a competent Court capable of rendering a valid acquittal or conviction. Since the initial trial was deemed a nullity due to the lack of valid sanction, the appellant was never in jeopardy. Thus, the Common Law rule did not apply. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the earlier prosecution was void due to the lack of a valid sanction, and the Presidency Magistrate's Court was not competent. Therefore, Section 403 CrPC did not bar the fresh prosecutions, and the Common Law rule against double jeopardy was inapplicable.
|
