A
B
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 364
KOLLA VEERA RAGHAV RAO
v.
GORANTALA VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1160 OF 2006)
FEBRUARY 1, 2011
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.300(1) - Scope of
·-Held: s.300(1) is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution
C - While, Article 20(2) only states that 'no one can be
prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than
once', s.300 (1) states that no one can be tried and convicted
for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the
same facts - In the instant case, accused was already
o convicted uls. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - He
E
· cannot be again tried or punished on the same facts under
s.420 or any other provision of /PC or any other statute -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(2) - Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Penal Code, 1860 - s.420.
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1160 of2006.
From the Judgment·& Order dated 7.10.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
F Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 1999 and Criminal Revision Case
No. 312 of 1999.
G
H
Bina Madhavan, Vinita Sasidharan (for Lawyer's Knit &
Co.) for the Appellant.
Ramesh Allanki (for D. Mahesh Babu) for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
364
KOLLA VEERA RAGHAV RAO v. GORANTALA
' 365
VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANR.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
A
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 07th October, 2005 passed by the High Court
ofAndhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 1999 and
B
Criminal Revision Case No. 312 of 1999.
The facts have been set O\.lt in the impugned judgment and
hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever
necessary.
C
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant was already convicted under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and hence he could not be
again t~ied or punished on the same facts·under Section 420 · 0
or any other provision of IPC or any other statute. We find force
in this submission.
It may be noticed that there is a difference between the
language used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and
Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C .. Article 20(2) states:
·
E
;
"no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same .
. offence more than once." On the other hand, Section
300(1) of Cr.P.C, States:
"300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried
F
for· same office-
(1) 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 G
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)
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 2 S.C.R.
A
of section 221 or for which he might have been convicted
under sub-section (2) thereof."
Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider
than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. While, Article 20(2) of the
8 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.
C
In the present case, although the offences are different but
the facts are the same. Hence, 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.
D
The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the
High Court is set aside.
D.G.
Appeal allowed.
Lex