TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant's prior acquittal by the Special Judge, which had never been set aside in appeal, barred a fresh trial for the same offence under section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code, notwithstanding the earlier High Court order treating the acquittal as ineffective.
Analysis: The majority held that the first trial was before a court of competent jurisdiction and that the acquittal remained operative because it had never been reversed in appeal. The earlier High Court ruling, even if erroneous in light of the later constitutional view of the Special Courts Act, was itself only an intermediate order in the same chain of proceedings and did not deprive the appellant of the benefit of the statutory protection against being tried again on the same facts. The principle underlying section 403 was treated as consistent with the wider doctrine of finality of judgments and with the rule that a lawful acquittal by a competent court is binding and conclusive in subsequent proceedings between the same parties.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to plead the bar of section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the second prosecution was not maintainable.
Dissenting Opinion: Sarkar, J. held that the appellant was bound by the earlier High Court order, that the acquittal could no longer be questioned, and that the bar under section 403 was unavailable because the issue of the competence of the original trial court had already attained finality against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings for the same offence could not be continued against the appellant, and the prosecution was quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: A lawful acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction, if never set aside in appeal, is binding and bars a subsequent trial for the same offence, and an erroneous intermediate order does not, by itself, destroy that final protection.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
