T BANGARAPPA Vs. RANGANATHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C. C. No. 264 of 49-50 on the file of the Special 1st Class Magistrate, Sagar, has been proceeded against under Section 355, Penal Code on a private complaint on the allegation that the complainant was shoe beaten causing him dishonour. The accused raised an objection that the present prosecution is barred under S. 403 as he had been already prosecuted for the same offence under Section 56(o) and (q), Mysore Police Act in C. C. 313 of 4950 which ended in acquittal. The objection was rejected by the learned Magistrate who directed the case to proceed? according to law. It is against that decision that this revision petition is filed.

(2.) It is argued for the petitioner that the offences for which he was prosecuted by the police is substantially the same as the one complained of under Section 355, Penal Code which is not denied to have arisen out of the same transaction and as such the accused should not be tried again for the same offence.

(3.) Section 403(1), Criminal P.C. embodies the maxim that no person should be twice-troubled for the same cause. It incorporates the common law principle known as 'autre-fois acquit' which means that no one shall be put into peril twice on the same matter on grounds of public policy. Clause (2) of Section 403 provides that