MATHAI MANJURAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. 111 of 1125 of the second class Magistrate's Court, Mattancherry has filed this petition for an order to the Magistrate to drop the proceedings against him in that case. He stated that the Ernakulam Town Police had started two proceedings against him for demonstration which took place on 27th Kanni 1123, one under Sections 92 and 93 (a), Cochin Criminal P. C. and another under Sections 129, 133, 135, 333, 427 and 484, Cochin Penal Code. The case under Sections 92 and 93 (a) Cochin Criminal P. C. had been registered as M. C. 32 of 1123 in the Court of the Anjikaimal First Class Magistrate's Court. He was directed to give security for one year for keeping peace. As he did not do so, he was directed to undergo imprisonment for one year. The Second case is now pending before the Mattancherry Court as mentioned. According to him the incidents that led to the two proceedings were the same and he stated that he could not be tried twice for the same offence.

(2.) THE prosecution case in C. C. 111 of 1125 was that at about 3. 30 P. M. on 27th Kanni 1123, this petitioner and others coming to about 150 persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the court-yard of the Legislative Council, Ernakulam and assaulted the head-constable on duty there. The member of the jatha rioted in the said court-yard insulting the honourable ministers and the honourable members of the Legislative Council with the intention to provoke a breach of peace and with the object of coercing the assembly from not considering the bill called the "criminal Law Amendment Bill". The petitioner was the leader of the jatha. For this he is being prosecuted now. Some other members of this jatha had been tried and convicted and the appeals by them had also been disposed of. Miscellaneous proceedings were started because this petitioner was stated to have delivered four seditious speeches so as to incite the people to disobey law. One of those speeches was on 27th Kanni 1123 in the Rajendra Maidan. Mentioning these speeches and also the part played by the petitioner in leading Jatha and creating trouble in the Legislative Council premises the police requested the Magistrate to start proceeding against him for an order to the petitioner to give security for keeping peace for one year. It is a fact that the security proceedings before the Magistrate ended in a direction to the petitioner to give security. In order to substantiate the order thus passed, it was true that the happenings on 27th Kanni 1123 had also been taken into account alter taking evidence on the same.

(3.) THE petitioner's case was that he had been tried for what took place on 27th Kanni 1123 in the security proceedings so that he was not to be tried once again for what took place that day. He stated that under Article 20, Constitution of India, no person could be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This is the principle laid down in Section 403 of the Indian Code. It had been laid down that a person who had once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remained in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on same facts for any other offence for Which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made Section 212 or for Which he might have been convicted under Section 213, Cochin Criminal P. C. If it is taken that in the security proceedings the petitioner had been tried for the offences said to have been committed by him on 27th Kanni 1123, then he could not be tried again for offences arising out of the same occurrence.