LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus BHAGWAN DAS AGRAWAL & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D [2013] 17 S.C.R. "i154 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHAGWAN DAS AGRAWAL & OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 2118 of 2013 etc.) DECEMBER 17, 2013. [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s. 186 - Power of High Court to discontinue subsequent criminal proceedings in other courts -- Two or more courts taking cognizance of offences - Held: The sine qua non for application of s. 86 is that the cases instituted in different courts are in respect of the same offence arising out of the same occurrence and the same transaction and the persons implicated as accused in different cases must be the same - - If these conditions are satisfied then subsequent proceedings have to be discontinue.d - Same offence, .. would mean that acts and omissions which constitute the offence are E one and the same -- In the instant case, the nature and manner of offences committed by accused persons are not identical but are different -- Except the a/legation that explosives were loaded at the factory place, the mode and manner in which offences were committed at different places F are not the same -- As such, provision of s. 186 is not attracted and High court erred in passing the impugned order, which is set aside - Explosives Act, 1884 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Penal Code, 1860. G A case bearing FIR/Crime No. 161/2010 was registered on 13.7.2010 with respect to supply of explosives by a concern (RECL) of which respondent No. 1 WqS the Managing Director, to another concern 'GES' H 1154 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHAGWAN DAS 1155 AGRAWAL during the period from 17 .4.2010 to 29.6.2010 in A contravention of Explosives Act, Explosive Substances Act and the Penal Code. A charge-sheet was filed in the said case before the court at Sagar (M.P.). A similar charge sheet was filed in the court at Chanderi (M.P.) in FIR/Crime No. 310/2010 registered on 26.8.23010 in respect of B supply .of explosives by RECL to another concern, namely, SEH during the period from 1;4.2010 to 30.6.2010. A third charge-sheet was filed on 4.1212010 before the court at Dholpur (Rajasthan) in another FIR/Crime No. 427/ 2010, lodged at Police Station, Dholpur, which had c jurisdiction over the factory place of RECL, in respect of supplies madljl by 'RECL' to 'GES' aad SEH during ,the period from 1.4.2010 to 5.9.2010. Respondent no. 1-med E a petition u/s 482 C.P.C. before the High Court contending that the sum and substance of the allegations D in the cases in the courts at Sagar, Chanderi and Dholpur being identical relating to the same occurrence/same transaction as also the same offence, the criminal proceedings in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholput being violative of s. 186(b), Cr.P.C. be discontinued. The High Court allowed the petition. Aggrieved, State of Rajasthan filed Crl. A. No. 2118 of 2013. Crl. A. 2119 of 2013 was filed by the accused- respondents in Crl. A. No. 2118 of 2013, as their habeas corpus petition' was disposed of by the High Court · holding that legality of their remand and detention in F respect of FIR No. 427/2010, Kotwali Dholpur would be adjudicated after the decision on the issue of jurisdiction of courts in_Rajasthan by the Supreme Court in Crl. A. No. 2118 of 2013. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 186, Cr.P:c., deals with the powe'r of the High Cour:t to decide, in case of doubt, the district where inquiry or trial shall take place. The main object and G H 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R. A intention of the Legislature in enacting the provision is to prevent the accused persons from being unnecessarily harassed for the same offences alleged to have been committed within the' territorial jurisdiction of more than one courts, and, therefore, necessary, direction B is to be issued to discontinue the su6sequent proceedings in other courts. The provision is based on the principle of convenience and expediency. However, the sine q·ua non for the application of this provision is that the cases instituted in different courts are in respect c of the same offence arising out of the same occurrence, the same transaction and the persons implicated as accused in different cases must be the same. If these conditions are satisfied then subsequent proceeding has to be discontinued. [Para 11-12] [1164-G; 1165-D-G] D State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan 1988 Suppl. (3) SCR 455 = (1988
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.