KANNAN NAIR Vs. KAUSALYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise from Criminal Appeal 22 of 1968 on the file of the District Magistrate, Tellicherry. That appeal had arisen from C.C. 1145 of 1967 on the file of the Sub Magistrate, Cannanore. That was a case started on a private complaint filed by one Kausalya against Puthalath Kannan Nair alleging that on 16-4-1967 at about 10.30 A.M. he pushed her down and beat her with a fire wood stick causing injuries on her. She was rendered unconscious and sometime after the incident when she was restored to consciousness, she went to the Baliapattam Police Station and lodged the complaint. From the Police Station she was sent to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cannanore where she was an inpatient for thirteen days. On the complaint filed by her a petty case under S.51 of the Kerala Police Act was taken even though the information furnished by her had disclosed the commission of an offence under S.324 IPC. Learned Sub Magistrate convicted the accused under S.324 IPC. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 200/-. It was further directed by the learned magistrate that out of the fine collected Rs. 100/- should be paid to the complainant. In appeal the learned District Magistrate set aside the conviction under S.324 IPC. but convicted the accused under S.323. The sentence of imprisonment passed under S.324 IPC. was also set aside and the accused was sentenced under S.323 to a fine of Rs. 200/-. Criminal Revision Petition No. 449 of 1968 is by the accused against the conviction under S.323 while the connected Criminal Revision Petition No. 478 of 1968 is by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence.

(2.) In Crl. R. P. 449 of 1968 the sole point raised by the learned counsel is that the trial is vitiated by the bar of S.403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bar of issue 'Estoppel' was also raised by the learned counsel but that was not pressed at the final stage. He confined himself solely on the bar of S 403. S.403 provides that "a person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offences shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under S.236, or for which he might have been convicted under S.237". Sub-s.(2) of S.403 is particularly relevant for the present case. The sub-section reads:-

(3.) The position is thus quite clear that subsequent trial for an offence under the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be bad in law for the reason that the accused was once tried and acquitted for an offence under the Kerala Police Act. The two are distinct offences falling under two different enactments; the one could not have been cognate with the other so as to be clubbed together in the same trial. The second trial therefore is quite in order and I see no reason to interfere with the conviction entered in the second trial.