STATE OF KARNATAKA versus K. H. ANNEGOWDA & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 350 · Decided: 08-12-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
350 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
K. H. ANNEGOWDA & ANR. 
December 8, 1976 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.J 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1893-S. 494-Scope of Prosecution withdraw11 
before. S~ssions Court-If amounts "discharge" or "acquittal" of accused-Code 
of Criminal Procedure 1973-S. 300-lf a bar for fresh prosecution for the 
same offence. 
. Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1893 provides that ariy Pub-
lic Prosecutor may, with the consent of the Court, in cases tried by jury before 
th.e return of the verdict and in other cases before the judgment is pronounced, 
withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any 
ono or more of the offences for which he is tried and upop such withdrawal-
( a) if it is made before a charge has been framed the accused shall be 
discharged; and 
(b) if it is made after the charge has been framed or when under the 
Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted. 
In the instant case, the committing Magistrate framed a charge against the 
respondents for having committed an offence under s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C. 
and committed them for trial by a Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge granted 
permission sought by the . Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution 
under s. 494 of the Code and "discharged" the respondents. 
After fresh investigation a new charge sheet was filed. 
Sy then the Code 
of Criminal Procedure 1973 had come into force. Following the provisions of 
the new Code, the committing Magistrate committed the respondents to. stand 
trial before the Sessions Court for the same offence. 
When the case came up 
for trial, the respondents contended that by virtue of the earlier orders of the 
Sessions Court, they had been acquitted and that they were not liable to be 
prosecuted again for the offence in view of s. 300 of the new Code. This was 
rejected on the ground that they had earlier been "discharged" and not acquitted 
and that s. 300 had no application to their case. The High Court allowed their 
revision application holding that since the withdrawal from the prosecution in 
the earlier case was made after t1ie charge had been framed, the respondent' had 
been acquitted and the bar of s. 300 was attracted. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The High Court was right in holding that by reason of the order 
of the Sessions Judge granting consent to the withdrawal from the prosecution in 
the earlier case, the respondents were acquitted and in view of s. 300 they were 
not liable to be tried again for the same offence. [356B] 
(1) Section 484 of the new Code provides that where a trial is pending imme-
diately before the commencement of the new Code, it shall be proceeded with 
in accordance with the provisions of the old Code as if the new Code were not 
in force. 
r3 52Hl 
-
In the instant c.ase, when the new Code came into force the case was pending 
before the Court of Session for trial and so was liable to be tried according to 
the old Code. It was for this reason that the withdrawal application was mnde 
under s. 494 of the old Code. f353A-BJ 
· 
(2) (a) When the prosecution against an accused committed 
for trial 
is 
allowed to be withdrawn by the Court of Session under s. 494 of the old Code, 
KARNATAKA v. K. H. ANNEGOWDA (Bhagwati, J.) 
351 
the withdrawal of the prosecution would be after the framing of tho 
charge 
against the accused and it must result in the acq11ittal of the accused under cl. (b) 
-0f that section. [355G] 
(b) The charge against an accus~d under the procedure p~escribe? in the n~w 
Code is to be framed for ·the first time by the Court of SeSSion whlle accordmg 
to the procedure prescribed under the old Code, the charge is framed by the 
committiRg Magistrate and the Court of Session is merely given the power to 
alter or amend the . charge, if it thinks necessary to do so. 
Therefore, when 
under the old Code, the Court of Session commences the trial of an accused, 
there is already before it a charge framed by the committing Magistrate and it 
is that charge that is required to be read out and explained to the accused, and 
-0n which the plea of the accused is required to be taken. [3 ~5D-F] 
. 
(c) In the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate followed this procedure aml 
after framing the charge eommitted the respondents for trial. [354G] 
Queen Empress v. Sivaran1a, 12 Mad. 35 and In re. Ve/ay11dha M11dali, A.LR. 
1949 Mad 508, approved. 
CRIMINAL APPLLATE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.