LexSANGEETABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 1155 SANGEETABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL A V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 645 of 2012) APRIL 23, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.300 - Applicability B of - Rule of double jeopardy - Respondent no. 2 filed complaint against appellant u/s. 138 NI Act - Appellant tried C for the said offence and the case sub judice before High Court - Subsequent case filed by respondent no. 2 against appellant ulss. 4061420 rlw s. 114 /PC - Plea of appellant that subsequent criminal case involving provisions of /PC was barred by s.300 Cr.P.C. and s.26 of General Clauses Act, D 1897 as appellant was already dealt with/tried uls. 138 NI Act - Held: In the prosecution uls.138 N.I. Act, the mens rea i.e. fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of issuance of cheque is not required to be proved - However, in the case under /PC, the issue of mens rea may be relevant - In the E case under N. I. Act, if a fine is imposed, it is to be adjusted to meet the legally enforceable liability - There is no such requirement in the offences under /PC - The case under N.I. Act can only be initiated by filing a complaint - However, in a case under the /PC such a condition is not necessary - F There may be some overlapping of facts in both the cases but ingredients of offences are entirely different - Thus, the subsequent case is not barred by any of the said statutory provisions - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Penal Code, 1860 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - s.26 - G ss.4061420 rlw s. 114. Doctrine/Principle: Double jeopardy - Held: The rule against double jeopardy provides foundation for the pleas of 1155 H 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A autrefois acquit and autrefois convict - The manifestation of this rule is to be found contained in s. 300 Cr. P. C; s. 26 of the General Clauses Act; and s. 71 /PC - In order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution i.e. doctrine of autrefois acquit or s.300 Cr.P.C. ors. 71 IPC or s.26 of General B Clauses Act, ingredients of the offences in the earlier case as well as in the latter case must be the same and not different - The test to ascertain whether the two offences are the same is not the identity of the allegations but the identity of the ingredients of the offence - Motive for committing c offence cannot be termed as ingredients of offences to determine the issue - The plea of autrefois acquit is not proved unless it is shown that the judgment of acquittal in the previous charge necessarily involves an acquittal of the latter charge. D Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the appellant on the ground that the appellant had taken loan of Rs. 20 lakhs from respondent no.2 and in order to meet the said liability, the appellant issued cheque which on presentation got E dishonoured. Subsequently respondent no. 2 filed an FIR under Sections 406/420 read with Section 114, IPC for committing the offence of criminal breach of trust, cheating and abetment etc. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 138 of N.I. Act. However, the F District Court ordered his acquittal. Respondent no. 2 filed appeal before the High Court which was pending. The appellant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the criminal case pending before the Magistrate for committing the offence of G criminal breach of trust, cheating and abetment etc. on the grounds, inter-alia that it amounted to abuse of process of law. The High Court dismissed the said application. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. H SANGEETABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL v. STATE 1157 OF GUJARAT AND ANR. Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1. The rule against double jeopardy provides foundation for the pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. The manifestation of this rule is to be found contained in Section 300 Cr.P.C; Section 26 of the 8 General Clauses Act; and Section 71 l.P.C. The law is well settled that in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution i.e. doctrine of autrefois acquit or Section 300 Cr.P.C. or Section 71 IPC or Section 26 of General Clauses Act, ingredients of the offences in the C earlier case as well as in the latter case must be the same and not different. The test to ascertain whether the t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.