BASAVEGOWDA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused 2 in Sessions Case No. 9/49-60 who, as accused 3 in Sessions Case No. 8 of 43-50, stood charged for an offence under Section 467, Penal Code. Separate charges were also framed against the second and third accused (in Sessions Case No. 8/49-50) under Section 82, Mysore Registration Act. On a motion by the Public Prosecutor, the charge for the offence under Section 82, Registration Act was kept by for a separate trial, as a joint trial for the offences both under the Penal Code and the Registration Act was considered by the Sessions Judge to be irregular. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 467, Penal Code. The charge under Section 82, Registration Act was then taken up for trial in Sessions case No. 9/49-50. The petitioner filed an application under Section 403, Criminal P. C., objecting to the trial on the principle of autrefois acquit, The learned Sessions Judge held that the acquittal under Section 467, Penal Code is no bar for trial of an offence under Section 82, Registration Act. This revision petition ia filed against that order.

(2.) Sri V. K. Govindarajulu, the learned counsel, on behalf of the petitioner urged that the offences complained of having arisen out of the same transaction, and the facts to be proved in both the cases remaining same, the second trial is against public policy involved in the scheme of legislation, He relied upon the decision in Saing Maung v. Emperor, AIR (11) 1924 Rang. 213: (25 Cr.L.j. 191) which held that:

(3.) Section 403 (2) states that a person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him on a former trial under Section 235 (1), Criminal P. C. Section 385 (1) provides for the trial of offences committed in the same transaction, and if more offences than one are committed by a person he may under that section be tried at one trial for every such offence.