LAXMIDHAR PATI Vs. JANARDAN NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the accused - Petitioner Laxmidhar Pati against the judgment of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Champua, in ICC No. 14 of 1984 convicting him under section 323, I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

(2.) At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nayak submitted that the entire proceedings in ICC No. 14 of 1984 are vitiated in view of the provisions of section 300, Cr. P.C. In this context he relied on paragraph 11 of the complaint petition which shows that the complainant had, in relation to the very same set of facts, earlier med complaint case No. 25 of 1983 which was dismissed. From paragraph 11 of the complaint petition and the relevant order-sheet in I.C.C. No. 25 of 1983 it is clear that the earlier complaint case No. 25 of 1983 was dismissed under section 256, Cr. P.C., and the accused persons were acquitted and set at liberty. That in relation to the very same set of facts the earlier complaint-case No. 25 of 1983 was dismissed and the accused therein were acquitted is not in dispute. Section 300(1), Cr. P.C. provides:p300 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.- (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence 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 subsection (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.Section 300(1), Cr. P.C. is based on the principle that no manTs life or liberty shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence on the same set of facts. (see Mohd. Safi v. State of West Bengal. Section 300, Cr. P.C. bars a fresh complaint and another trial on the same facts, as the word triedT therein would not necessarily mean tried on merits. (See Rabindra Dhal v. Jairam Sethi2. In the present case, the order of the learned Magistrate passed on 13/3/1984 acquitting the accused persons in ICC No. 25 of 1983 under section 256, Cr. P.C. is a final order of acquittal, according to the settled position of law, and so no second complaint for the trial of the same offence could lie in view of the bar under section 300, Cr. P.C.

(3.) Hence I find that the judgment of the learned Magistrate convicting the accused-petitioner under section 323, I.P.C. is without jurisdiction. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner under section 323, I.P.C. is set aside and accordingly the revision petition is allowed.