2011 (2) TMI 1257 - SC - Companies Law

Supreme Court bars multiple trials for same facts in criminal cases

Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Versus Gorantla Venkateswara Rao

Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Versus Gorantla Venkateswara Rao - [2011] 106 SCL 233 (SC), 2011 AIR 641, 2011 (2) SCR 364, 2011 (2) SCC 703, 2011 (1) JT 612, 2011 ... Issues:- Interpretation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India vs. section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.- Application of section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. in a case with different offenses but same facts.Analysis:The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court involved a crucial interpretation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and section 300(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The appellant had been convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and argued that being tried or punished again on the same facts under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was impermissible. The Court examined the difference between Article 20(2) of the Constitution and section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. The former prohibits prosecution and punishment for the same offense more than once, while the latter extends to not being tried again for the same offense or even a different offense but on the same facts.In this case, although the offenses were different, the facts remained the same. The Court applied section 300(1) of Cr.P.C., which is broader in scope than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. It was held that since the facts were identical, the prosecution under section 420 IPC was barred by the principles enshrined in section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, emphasizing the importance of not subjecting individuals to multiple trials for the same set of facts, even if different offenses are involved.