KHAJI FAROAQ HUSSAIN Vs. S ABDULLA SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question that arises in this revision case is "whether the. principle of. Autrofo is Acquit as contained in. Section 300 Cr P C is attracted even in cases of orders of acqui ttal passed under Sections 255 and 256 Cr P C in summons cases".

(2.) The facts giving rise to this question lie in a narrow compass The respondent filed a complaint under Sections 498-A and 384 I P C against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners accused have treated his daughter cruelly, who was given in marriage to A-1, and even forced her to bring Rs. 20,000 towards dowry. The complaint was taken on file and registered as C C No 63 of 1985. P Ws 1 to 3 have been examined. At that stage the accused filed Criminal Misc. Petition No 637 of 1985 under Section 300 Cr P C stating that the complaint in C C 63 of 85 is barred by virtue of the order of acquittal passed under Section 255 Cr P C in C C No 13 of 1984, and that at any rate the cornplaint in C C No 63 of 85 is not maintainable even for offences under Sections 498-A and 384 I P C in as much as the Consent of the State Government has not been obtained as required under Section 300 (2) Cr P C. It may be mantionad here that C C No 13 of 1984 arose on the basis of a police challa. The said case was registered by the poiice on the basis of a report given by this very complaint But the case ended in acquittal under Section 255 (1) Cr P C on 13-8-1935 on the ground that the prosecution was not interested in the cas3, though sevaral adjournments ware granted and summonses were issued to the witnesses number of times. This objection raised in Crl M P No 637 of 1985 was upheld by the learned judicial First Class Magistrate Nandikotkur and the Crl M P was allowed and consequently the accused in C C No 63 of 1985 were discharged as it was a warrant case. Questioning the said order, the comp- lainant filed Criminal R C No 14 of 1986 in the Court of the 11 Additional Sessions Judge, Kujnool, who allowed the revision holding that Section 300 Cr P C is not applicaable and set aside the order of discharge of the respondents accused in C C No 63 of 1985 and directed them to be tried in accordance with law. The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are :- 1) in C C No 13 of 1984 the accused were sought to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148 and 506 I P C as a summary procedure case, whereas the private complaint in C C No 63 o f 85 against the accused is for offences pnnishable under Sections 498-A and 384 I P C which is a warrant procedure case. 2) In C C No 13 of 1984 the accused were tried on the basis of a charge sheet filed by the police for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148 and 509 I P C and were acquitted under Sec. 255 (1) Cr P C for non-production of witnesses. Therefore, they cannot be said that they were acquitted after full trial and the acquittal was not on merits, whereas the private complaint in C C No 63 of 1985 is a warrant case and the offences alleged are under Sections 498-A and 384 I P C. Both the offences are distinct and separate and therefore Section 300 Cr P C will not be applicable and there was no necessity to seek the consent of the Governmant as required under Sec. 300 (2) Cr P C.

(3.) Tha learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the police report in CC No 13 of 1984 and the allegations in the private complaint in C C 63 of 1985 are one and the same, that even in C C 13 of 1984 the accused could have been tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 384 I P C also, and that the learned First Class Magistrate, Nandikotkur, who took cognizance in C C 13 of 84 was also competent to try the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 385 and therefore Section 300 (2) is attracted.