LexTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus VEERESHWAR RAO AGNIHOTRY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19~7 Ramji Lai Modi v. Tht State of U.P. Das C. J. 1957 April 5· 868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1957] arise and the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to this case. For the reasons stated above, the impugned section falls well within the protection of cl. (2) of Art. 19 and this application must, therefore, be dismissed. ' Application dismissed. THE ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH fl. VEERESHW AR RAO AGNIHOTRY (S. R. DAs C.J., JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAs, GoVINDA MENON and A. I).. SARKAR JJ.) Autrefois acquit-Trial for offences under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act- Acquittal of charge under s. 5(2)-Whether conviction under s. 409 barred-Code of Criminal Procedure s. 403-Constitution of India Art. 20(2 )-General Clauses Act s. 26. 'fhe accused was tried by a Special Judge for offences under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was convicted under s. 409 but the Judge held that the accused could not be tried under s. 5(2) as there had been no investigation by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Upon appeal by the accused against the conviction under s. 409, the High Court applying the doctrine of autrefois acquit held that the order of the Judge in respect of the charge under s. 5(2) was tantamount to an acquittal for that offence and on the same facts no conviction coul<l be had under s. 409 : Held, that the offences under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were distinct and separate and there could be no objection to a trial and convic· tion under s. 409 even if the accused had been acquitted under s. 5(2). Om Prakash Gupta v. The State of U.P., [1957) S.C.R.423, applied. Section 403( I) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application where there is only one trial for several offences, of some of which the accused person is acquitted though convicted of one. Article 20 of the Constitution also docs not apply where the accused had not already been\ tried and acquittl"'r' for the same offence ·in an earlier trial. • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 869 Where there are two alternate charges in the same trial, the fact that the accused is acquitted of one of them will not prevent the conviction on the other. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRisDICTION: Criminal appeals Nos. 130 and 131 of 1954. Appeals by special leave from th~ judgment and order dated September 11, 1953, of the former Madhya Bharat High Court in Appeals Nos. 42 and 43 of 1953. Shiv Dayal and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. B. C. Misra, amicus curiae, for the respondent. 1957. April 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GoVINDA MENON J.-The State of Madhya Bharat, which after November 1, 1956, had become merged in the present State of Madhya Pradesh, had obtained special leave from this court on April 11, 1954, ' to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent herein, by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Bharat on Septem- ber 11, 1953, in two consolidated Criminal Appeals Nos. 42 and 43 of 1953, by the identical appellant before that court. The question for decision in these two appeals is how far the High Court was justified in ordering the acquittal. the respondent herein was a Tax-Collector in the Municipal Committee of Lashkar, Gwalior, and was prosecuted in the court of the City Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate, Lashkar, firstly by means of a challan dated October 23, 1951, for offences under ss. 468, 477-A and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. II of 1947, in that he misappropriated a sum of more than Rs. 7,000, entrusted to him in the capacity of Tax- Collector, and during the course of the said transaction committed various offences. On July 4, 1952, a second complaint was filed against him in the same court under the identical sections for having misappropriated in 1950 a sum of Rs. 3500 in all under similar circumstances. While these two complaints were pend- ing in the trial court, on July 28, 1952, the Criminal 1957 The. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Veertshwar Rao ~gnihotry Govinda Mnton 11 870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19571 Law Amendment Act (Act No. 46 of 1952) came into force and by s. 6 of that statute, the State Govern
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.