RAVADA RAMA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused in P.R.C.No.7/2000 and the present Petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.7/2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, S.Kota in Vizianagaram District on the ground that no person shall be prosecuted twice for the same offence.

(2.) It is stated that the 2nd respondent, a resident of Jannivalsa Village had alleged that on 6-6-1999 at about 8 p.m., when she was alone in her house and her husband was away from the house, the petitioners had trespassed into the house of the 2nd respondent and fell her down by catching hold of her hair and the 2nd petitioner attempted to remove the clothes of the 2nd defendant after she fell down and the 2nd respondent raised cries and freed herself from the hands of the petitioners and came out of her house. It was further alleged that the petitioners herein beat her with hands and kicked her in the street and took away her ear studs worth 1/2 tula along with Sathamanam weighing 1/2 tula. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent gave a report at Jammi P.S. under Sections 354, 323 and 379 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. The S.I. of Police had registered a case and investigated into the offence and it is also stated that the investigation disclosed that the allegations made by the 2nd respondent that the petitioners had taken away gold studs and Mangala Sutram are false. Subsequent thereto, the 2nd respondent had filed a private complaint in C.C.No.86/ 99 against the petitioners on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, S.Kota for offences alleged to have taken place on 6-6-1999 under Sections 448, 354, 323 and 379 I.P.C. and during the pendency of the case, the case against the 2nd petitioner was dismissed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It was also stated that the 2nd respondent had examined herself as PW-1 and one M. Papa Rao was examined as PW-2 and the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate. S.Kota after examining the evidence on record had acquitted the 1st petitioner on the ground that there is no corroborative evidence and delivered a judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.86/99 on 6-6-2000. It is further stated that due to political pressure of the 2nd respondent and due to the transfer of the then S.I. who had investigated the case, the Police had filed charge sheet in P.R.C.No.7/ 2000 in Cr.No.58/99 for the same offence and for the same occurrence though the petitioners were acquired in C.C.No.86/99 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate. S.Kota. Hence, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted again for the selfsame offences since it will amount to double jeopardy.

(3.) Sri Venkataswami Yadav, the learned Counsel representing Sri Kuriti Bhaskar Rao, Counsel for the petitioners had drawn my attention to the judgment in C.C.No.86/99 and also the findings recorded by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, S.Kota at paragraphs 11 to 13. The learned Counsel also contended that the incident for which the petitioners were already tried and the incident in the present P.R.C. are one and the same. The learned Counsel also submitted that the judgment in C.C.No.86/99 became final and despite the same, again the Police had lodged charge sheet which cannot be sustained since it will amount to double jeopardy. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Section 300 Cr.P.C. in this regard. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and another v. L.R. Melwani and another, AIR 1970 SC 962.