RAMA NAND Vs. SHERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut under Section 438, Criminal P.C., and arises under the following circumstances:

(2.) There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure attaching finality to an order of discharge analogous to the provisions of S, 403 of the Code which bars the trial of a person for the same offence of which he has been convicted or acquitted so long as the order of conviction or acquittal remains in force. It is clear therefore that an order of discharge cannot be a bar to the trial of the person discharged for the same offence of which he was discharged, but it is also equally clear that it would be highly inconvenient to allow successive trials of complaints based on same allegations by different Magistrates and different Courts, after a previous complaint on the same facts by the same complainant and against the same accused has been dismissed by a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. A subsequent complaint can be filed either (1) before the same Court presided over by the same Magistrate who had dismissed the former complaint, or (2) before the same Court presided over by the succe3sor-in-offioe of the Magistrate who had dismissed the former complaint, or (3) before a Court other than the Court which had dismissed the former complaint.

(3.) It is well settled that there is no bar to the trial of a second complaint by the same Magistrate who had dismissed the first complaint and passed an order of discharge. To this effect are the decisions of this Court in Queen-Empress v. Puran (1886) 9 All. 85, Queen-Empress v. Omedan (1895) A.W.N. 86, Emror v. Mehrban Husain (1906) 29 All. 7 and Emperor v. W.C. Keymer A.I.R. 1914 All. 179.