1957 (4) TMI 70 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Jurisdiction in Corruption Case, Clarifies Doctrine of Autrefois Acquit

The Supreme Court held that the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, overturning the High Court's ... - Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act.2. Doctrine of autrefois acquit and its application in the case.3. Distinction between offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.4. Interpretation of Section 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.5. Application of Article 20 of the Constitution in the case.6. Effect of acquittal on one charge in a trial with multiple charges.7. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act.Jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act:The State of Madhya Bharat appealed against the acquittal of a Tax-Collector by the High Court. The case involved offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge, appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, had jurisdiction to try the accused for these offenses. The Special Judge convicted the respondent under one section but acquitted under others. The State challenged the High Court's application of the doctrine of autrefois acquit.Doctrine of autrefois acquit and its application in the case:The High Court acquitted the respondent based on the doctrine of autrefois acquit, which prevents conviction for the same offense twice. However, the Supreme Court found that the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code were distinct. The Court held that the acquittal under one charge did not bar conviction under another charge in the same trial.Distinction between offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code:The Supreme Court clarified that the offense of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not the same as the offense under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized that the respondent could be convicted under the Indian Penal Code despite being acquitted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.Interpretation of Section 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code:Section 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits subsequent trials for the same offense or on the same facts. In this case, since there was only one trial for multiple offenses and the respondent was acquitted of some charges while convicted of one, Section 403(1) did not apply. The Court set aside the High Court's order of acquittal.Application of Article 20 of the Constitution in the case:The High Court relied on Article 20 of the Constitution for the acquittal, but the Supreme Court ruled that Article 20 did not apply as the respondent was not prosecuted after being acquitted for the same offense in an earlier trial.Effect of acquittal on one charge in a trial with multiple charges:The Court held that when there are two alternative charges in the same trial, acquittal on one charge does not prevent conviction on the other. The General Clauses Act was cited to support this proposition, stating that an offender can be prosecuted and punished under any of the relevant enactments.Jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act:The Supreme Court concluded that the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's order of acquittal, and remanded the case for re-hearing on the merits in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.