Withdrawal after process as acquittal bars prosecution; continuing offence cannot defeat section 300 protection on same facts.

Withdrawal of a complaint after issuance of process was treated as an acquittal for the purpose of section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, so the accused could not be tried again on the same set of facts. The Gujarat HC further noted that although refusal to vacate company accommodation may be a continuing offence for limitation purposes under section 472, that character does not override the protection against double jeopardy. A second complaint based on a later period could not be sustained by splitting the same transaction into separate time segments after the earlier acquittal; the statutory bar therefore applied.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether withdrawal of the earlier complaint after issuance of process amounted to an acquittal attracting the bar under section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the offence under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be treated as a continuing offence so as to permit a second complaint for a later period despite the earlier acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether withdrawal of the earlier complaint after issuance of process amounted to an acquittal attracting the bar under section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The earlier complaint had already crossed the stage of issuance of process, and the withdrawal of that complaint under section 257 of the Code was treated as an acquittal. Once process is issued, the trial is regarded as having commenced for the purpose of section 300. An accused who has been acquitted after such commencement cannot be tried again for the same offence on the same set of facts.

Conclusion: The earlier withdrawal operated as an acquittal, and the bar under section 300 of the Code applied.

Issue (ii): Whether the offence under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be treated as a continuing offence so as to permit a second complaint for a later period despite the earlier acquittal.

Analysis: Refusal to vacate company accommodation may constitute a continuing offence for limitation purposes under section 472 of the Code, but that principle does not override the protection against prosecution under section 300. Where the accused has already been acquitted after trial on the same transaction, a second prosecution cannot be sustained merely by splitting the period into earlier and later segments.

Conclusion: The continuing-offence character could not defeat the bar of section 300, and the second complaint was not maintainable on the same facts.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded in part and the petitioner obtained relief against the finding that the later period escaped the statutory bar, while the earlier acquittal-based bar was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Withdrawal of a complaint after issuance of process amounts to an acquittal for the purpose of section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and a continuing offence cannot be split to justify a second prosecution on the same facts after such acquittal.

---