NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is preferred by the 5th accused in Crime 761/2000 of Adoor Police Station, which was registered for offences punishable U/Sections 323, 341, 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. and re-registered by CBCID, Kollam as Crime 197/CR/2001 Crime Branch CID Unit, Kollam, praying that Annexure-G final report and Annexure-H charge framed in CC No. 1168/2004 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta under Section 120(b), 119, 420 r/w 34 may be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction u/Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner contended that if the trial is continued in this case, it amounts to double jeopardy which is an abuse of process of Court. The allegation against the accused in the above case is that between September 1999 and 11/08/2000, A1 to A4 obtained Rs. 22 lakhs from 2nd respondent making her believe that the 2nd accused is having gold treasure including a gold yam which could be sold to her for a lesser price and collected Rs. 8,50,000 and Rs. 2,75,000/-, from CWs 2 and 3, total Rs. 33,00,000/- and accused neither give the gold treasure as promised nor returned the money and thereby committed the offence. Petitioner being a Police Officer did not prevent the commission of offence by accused 2 to 4, in spite of the information. For this second respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, which was sent over to Adoor Police for investigation u/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., accordingly Crime 761/2000 of Adoor Police Station was registered for offence u/Section 420, 323, 341 r/w 34 I.P.C. Subsequently, the investigation was entrusted to Crime Branch CID Unit, Kollam, they re-registered it as Crime 197/CR/2001 CBCID, Kollam and after completing investigation, they filed Annexure-G final report.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case pending before JFMC, Sasthamkotta is barred by Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act 1897 (herein after referred to as 'Act' for short) as the petitioner was tried in Crime 261/CR/2000 of CBCID, Kollam (Crime 484/2000 of Adoor Police Station) relates to CC No. 201/2006 for offence punishable U/Sections 143, 149, 119, 120B and 420 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. for the same act and after trial, he was acquitted for offences U/Sections 119, 143 & 149, but convicted U/Sections 420 & 120B by the C.J.M. Court, Kollam and on appeal he was acquitted by the Sessions Court. If he is tried in the second case, it amounts to double jeopardy, which is against the mandatory provisions contained under Section 300 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor contended that earlier case, CC No. 201/2006 was tried and disposed of by C.J.M., Kollam, in which the de facto complainant was one Akbar. In CC No. 1168/2004 of J.F.C.M. Sasthamkotta, one Annie Rajan is the de facto complainant and both cases were charge-sheeted for different offences. The petitioner was a responsible officer to take action against the accused, knowing it to be likely that they are committing the above offence, he did not take action and helped them. Therefore, these two incidents are distinct offences and committed at two times. The application to club these two cases was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl. M.C. 2372/2004. Therefore, Section 300 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in this case and both cases are to be tried separately and any interference at this stage will affect the credibility of the prosecution case.