9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (11) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hyr. On the 22nd April, 1952, Vishnu Swaroop filed a written report at Barhee police station. In this report, he stated that, while inspecting the papers of the petitioners in connection with an agricultural income-tax case, he found a rokar relating to transactions in food-grains by the Bihar Food Trading Co. with the petitioners as its proprietors and started taking extracts from that rokar and signing its pages. The petitioners showed a threatening attitude to Vishnu Swaroop, snatched away the rokar from him and became ready to assault him. After making an investigation into these allegations, the Sub-Inspector of Barhee police station submitted charge- sheet against the petitioners and they were, thereupon, put upon their trial. As the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er appointed under Section 3 to assist the Commissioner. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 lays down: "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, or under the rules made thereunder, except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner......................." In view of the aforesaid provisions, it was necessary for Vishnu Swaroop to secure the sanction of the Commissioner before filing a complaint against the petitioners for offences under clauses (a) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26. He secured the sanction from the Commis- sioner and then filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Monghyr. In this complaint, he alleged that petitioner Shyam Lal Jagnani was a registered dealer for his firm at Barhee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar that the acts which the petitioners are alleged to have done on the 22nd April, 1952, are the same in the trial which is proceeding before Mr. D. Prasad as they were in the trial which concluded before Mr. J. Singh by his order dated the 20th December, 1952. Mr. Kaushal Kishore Singh, who has appeared on behalf of the peti- tioners before us, has argued that, in view of the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the present trial of the petitioners is illegal and unconstitutional. It appears to me that this argument cannot possibly have any application to the peti- tioners' trial for the offence under Section 26(1)(a) because that offence is constituted not by any act done by them on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing trial for an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code for which they have already been tried. Hence, I am of opinion that the present trial of the peti- tioners is not unconstitutional under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act lays down: "Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence." The prohibition in this section is against liability to punishment of a person twice for the same offence. The offence for which the petitioners are being tried is, as I have already said, not the same offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged." The words of this sub-section leave no room for doubt that the peti- tioners can be tried for an offence under Section 26(1)(h) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, even though this offence is constituted by the very acts in connection with which they were tried for an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code because the Magistrate who first tried them was not competent to try the offence for which they are now being tried. Mr. Sinha has relied upon the decision of a single Judge of this Court in the case of Gauri Shankar v. Emperor(1) in support of his argument that the pending trial is barred under Section 403 of the Code of Crimi- nal Proced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code also. The decision in Gauri Shankar Rai's case(1) has no application to this case because Mr. J. Singh who held the first trial was not competent at any time during the pendency of the trial before him to try the peti- tioners before us for the offence under Section 26(1)(h) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. I may also refer to another decision of the same single Judge of this Court, i.e., the case of Ramautar Lal v. Emperor(2). After quoting sub-section (4) of Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judge has observed as follows: "The sub-section has been enacted in an enabling form providing that a man can be tried for a second time for another offence arising out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
