TITUS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.C.No.5725/2013 was filed by the sole accused in S.T.No.2227/2013, while Crl.M.C.No.5726/2013 was filed by the first accused in S.T.No.2228/2013, Crl.M.C.No.5727/2013 was filed by the sole accused in S.T.No.2225/2013, Crl.M.C.No.5728/2013 was filed by sole accused in S.T.No.2229/2013, Crl.M.C.No.5729/2013 was filed by sole accused in S.T.No.2221/2013, Crl.M.C.No.5730/2013 was filed by sole accused in S.T.No.2222/2013, Crl.M.C.No.5731/2013 was filed by sole accused in S.T.No.2226/2013, Crl.M.C.No.5732/2013 was filed by sole accused in S.T.No.2223/2013 and Crl.M.C.No.5733/2013 was filed by sole accused in S.T.No.2224/2013, all on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam, for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code').

(2.) Since common question of law arose in all these cases, the cases have been disposed of by a common order.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner in all these cases submitted that, Annexure-I order in all these cases dropping the earlier proceedings under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have the effect of a deemed discharge and in the case of deemed discharge under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of Section 300(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he can be tried for the same offence only with the consent of the court which discharged him or from the higher court to which the earlier court is subordinate. So it is clear from this that, the consent of the court for filing of a fresh complaint is a condition precedent and that will have to be obtained at the time when the discharge order was passed by the trial court or by the higher court to which the former court was a subordinate. In this case, no such consent has been obtained. Further, all the complaints have been barred under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it was filed beyond the time mentioned therein in that section. Further, S.T.No.2226/2013 and 2224/2013 which are subject matters of Crl.M.C.No.5731/2013 and 5733/2013 were said to have been committed on the same date and time, which is not probable, that shows that, it is a false case. Further, if while construing a penal statute, if two views are possible, then one view in favour of the person to be affected has to be taken and that benefit must be given to him. If there is doubt as to whether the consent will have to be obtained prior to the filing of the complaint or after filing of the complaint under Section 300(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then the one in favour of the accused has to be taken and that benefit must be given to him. He had relied on the decisions Govind Impex Private Limited and Others v. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, 2011 1 SCC 529, Santhamma v. District Magistrate, 2010 1 KerLT 172, R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Metha and Others, 2009 1 SCC 516 and Regional Provident fund Commissioner v. Hooghly Mills Company Limited and Others, 2012 2 SCC 489 in support of his case. He had also relied on certain extracts in the book Maxwell of Interpretation of Statutes 12th Edition by P. St. J. Langan in support of that proposition.