Section 300 CrPC does not bar a later deposit-offence prosecution where the ingredients differ from earlier rule breaches.

Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not bar a prosecution under section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 where earlier proceedings concerned distinct breaches of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The earlier cases related to advertisement and liquidity requirements, while the later charge required proof of acceptance of deposits beyond the permitted limit and failure to repay within 30 days; the ingredients were not the same, so the later prosecution was maintainable. The challenge to the finding of deposit contravention failed because the record disclosed legal evidence supporting the concurrent findings. The directors were properly treated as officers in default on the basis of their management role and participation in the company's affairs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution under section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of earlier prosecutions based on alleged breaches of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. (ii) Whether the finding that the company had accepted deposits in excess of the prescribed limit and failed to repay them within the stipulated time was unsupported by evidence. (iii) Whether the directors were rightly treated as officers in default.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution under section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of earlier prosecutions based on alleged breaches of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975.

Analysis: Section 300 bars a second trial only where the earlier and later proceedings are for the same offence, or where the later offence is such that a different or alternative charge could have been framed in the former trial under section 221, or conviction could have followed under section 221(2). The earlier cases concerned non-compliance with advertisement and liquidity requirements under the deposit rules, whereas the present case required proof of acceptance of deposits beyond the permissible limit and failure to repay within 30 days. The ingredients and evidence necessary for the present charge were not required in the earlier prosecutions.

Conclusion: The later prosecution was not barred by section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding that the company had accepted deposits in excess of the prescribed limit and failed to repay them within the stipulated time was unsupported by evidence.

Analysis: Interference was sought on the ground that the evidence did not establish the identity of the depositors or the amounts received. The record did not show that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on inadmissible material or lacked legal evidence.

Conclusion: The evidentiary challenge failed and the finding of contravention was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the directors were rightly treated as officers in default.

Analysis: The second petitioner was the managing director and the third petitioner was a director who was shown to be involved in the management of the company's affairs. The filings under the deposit rules were signed by the second petitioner, and the appellate court's finding rested on those management roles and the participation shown in the record.

Conclusion: The finding that the petitioners were officers in default was sustained.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference with the concurrent findings on the statutory violations and the liability of the responsible officers, so the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent prosecution is barred only when it is for the same offence or for another offence whose ingredients could and should have been covered by the former trial on the same facts under sections 221 and 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; where the ingredients differ, the later prosecution is maintainable.

---