STATE Vs. NAGAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are connected and the point involved in the appeals is the same, Cri. Appeals Nos. 984 and 674 of 1970 are filed by the State against the order of the acquittal of the accused-respondent Nagappan in C. C. Nos. 5909 of 1969 and 11733 of 1969 on the file of the Third Presidency Magistrate. Madras, respectively.

(2.) ON 7/4/1969 a charge was framed against the accused for an offence under Section 381 I. P. C. in C. C. No. 5909 of 1969. The learned trial Magistrate passed judgment in that case as follows: Despite several adjournments none of the witnesses were produced and the police were also absent. Even the subpoenas issued for the witnesses were not returned and I have therefore, to take it that the prosecution has no evidence against the accused. I, hence, find the accused not guilty and acquit him of the charge under Section 381 I. P. C.

(3.) STRANGELY, the same Magistrate re-entertained the complaint by the State and framed a charge in C. C. No. 11733 of 1969 against the accused for the same offence. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate (Thiru S. A. Sunderesan) was transferred. Ultimately the judgment in C. C. No. 11733 of 1969 came to be written by Thiru K. S. Sankaralingam Konar on 4/3/1970. The learned trial Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 381, I. P. C. but acquitted him on the ground that the trial was barred by Section 403, Cr. P. C. The learned trial Magistrate observed in paragraph 9 of his judgment as follows: Today the accused produced a copy of the judgment in C. C. No. 5909 of 1969 against the accused. The facts in that case are the same as the facts herein. In that case, my learned predecessor has acquitted the accused of the charge. Since the accused has been acquitted of the charge on the prior occasion, Section 403 Cr. P. C. has come into operation and no further trial of the accused could be heard on the same facts and charge any further trial is barred by Section 403 Cr. P. C. It is surprising to note that my learned predecessor who acquitted the accused has taken it on file again on the same facts and on the same charge. I therefore, find the accused not guilty of the offence charged and acquit him.