Double jeopardy bar and proof beyond reasonable doubt failed, so the acquittal was upheld in revision.

The bar against a second trial was not made out because the earlier proceeding ended in discharge after withdrawal of the complaint, and the later prosecution rested on a different factual basis as to the demand draft date and particulars; section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore did not justify interference with the acquittal. The prosecution also failed to prove the alleged suppression of receipts and falsification of accounts beyond reasonable doubt, and the revisional court found no material irregularity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence. The acquittal was upheld and the criminal revision cases were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second complaint was barred by the rule against a second trial for the same offence; (ii) whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue (i): Whether the second complaint was barred by the rule against a second trial for the same offence

Analysis: The earlier proceeding had ended in discharge after the complaint was withdrawn, and the later prosecution proceeded on a different factual foundation regarding the date and particulars of the demand draft. The statutory bar applies only where there has been a prior trial resulting in conviction or acquittal for the same offence or on the same facts, and the materials did not justify treating the later complaint as hit by that bar.

Conclusion: The bar under section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not established as a ground to interfere with the acquittal.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt

Analysis: The trial court had assessed the oral and documentary evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged suppression of receipts and falsification of accounts to the required standard. The revisional court found no material irregularity in that appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The prosecution did not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the criminal revision cases were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court will not disturb an acquittal where the accused have not been shown to have faced a prior trial and conviction or acquittal for the same offence on the same facts, and where the prosecution evidence does not satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

---