2017 (2) TMI 415 - HC - Indian Laws

Acquittal of the petitioner in the complaint case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act - default for want of prosecution - Held that - The acquittal of the petitioner accused in the complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act was a result of nonappearance of the plaintiff and by resort to Section 256 of the Code. There was no determination, one way or another, of any issue of fact or law by the learned Magistrate, and there was no trial by the learned Magistrate in the said complaint case. No finding or decision was rendered- either on facts, or in law by the learned Magistrate who had acquitted the accused. The result of such acquittal, by force of Section 300(1), would be that while such acquittal remains in force , the petitioner accused shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, namely the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act in relation to the dishonour of the cheque(s) which formed the basis of the complaint. In my view, the further prohibition against the accused being tried on the same facts for any other offence would not apply to this fact situation. The relevant words nor on the same facts clearly show that for latter part of Section 300(1) to apply, the same facts should have been tried and determined in the earlier trial conducted for any other offence. Though the accused may have been technically acquitted in respect of one of such complaints, there would be no determination of any issue of fact, or law, since no trial had taken place determining any issue of fact, or law. However, if one of such complaints were to result in an acquittal after a trial, the findings returned by the Court in its decision would constitute estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence, but as precluding the acceptance/ reception of evidence to disturb the findings of fact when the accused is tried subsequently for a difference offence . Since the trial in the complaint case under section 138 of the NI Act had not taken place, there would be no question of the petitioner accused being tried again . In the present case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, was dealing with the complaint of the complainant u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Merely because in the said complaint, the facts which constitute offences u/s 406/420 IPC may have been laid out, it does not follow that the Magistrate was obliged to take cognizance of the said offences and he having failed to do so, the FIR in question could not have been registered against the accused. Thus, even if the petitioner was tried in respect of one of the charges, namely, u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, and even if he is taken to have been acquitted, he may be tried for any distinct offence for which at the former trial a separate charge may have been, but was not made.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR based on previous acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Applicability of Section 300(1) CrPC regarding double jeopardy.
3. Interpretation of "same facts" in the context of Section 300 CrPC.
4. Whether dismissal under Section 256 CrPC amounts to acquittal barring further prosecution under different sections of IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of FIR based on previous acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 616/2015 registered under Sections 420/406/34 IPC, arguing that the same facts had led to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The petitioner claimed that this dismissal amounted to acquittal, thus barring further prosecution under the same facts.

2. Applicability of Section 300(1) CrPC regarding double jeopardy:
Section 300(1) CrPC states, "A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof." The petitioner argued that since he was acquitted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he could not be tried again for offences under Sections 420/406/34 IPC based on the same facts.

3. Interpretation of "same facts" in the context of Section 300 CrPC:
The respondent contended that "same facts" in Section 300 CrPC refer to relevant facts constituting an offence. The Supreme Court in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat clarified that the ingredients of the offences must be the same, not just the facts. In this case, the ingredients of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act differ from those under Sections 406/420 IPC.

4. Whether dismissal under Section 256 CrPC amounts to acquittal barring further prosecution under different sections of IPC:
The court observed that the dismissal under Section 256 CrPC due to non-prosecution does not constitute a trial. Therefore, it does not bar subsequent prosecution for different offences arising from the same facts. The Supreme Court in Sangeetaben (supra) held that the acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not preclude prosecution under Sections 406/420 IPC, as the ingredients of these offences are different.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for non-prosecution did not amount to a trial, and thus, did not bar the prosecution under Sections 420/406/34 IPC. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the subsequent trial for different offences based on the same facts is permissible.