Distinct offences and enabling joinder rules justify separate trials; weapon identification evidence upheld the conviction.

A later prosecution is not barred where the earlier trial did not determine the same offences, even if it involved related facts. Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as enabling, not mandatory, so separate trials for offences under the Arms Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act were not illegal for want of joinder. On the evidence, the seized sten-gun and cartridges were identified in court by the investigating officer and armourer, the weapon was found working and the cartridges live, and the defence challenge to tracing and custody did not create reasonable doubt. The defence version was rejected and the conviction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could be re-tried for possession of the sten-gun and cartridges on the plea that the earlier trial had already considered the same matter; (ii) Whether separate trial for offences under the Arms Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was illegal for want of joinder under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (iii) Whether the evidence established the identity and condition of the seized weapon and cartridges and whether the defence version was acceptable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant could be re-tried for possession of the sten-gun and cartridges on the plea that the earlier trial had already considered the same matter.

Analysis: The earlier case was for offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. The appellant had not then been tried for possession of firearms without licence or for the offence under Section 5 of that Act. The issues in the two proceedings were different, and the earlier disbelief of a prosecution case on a different charge did not bar the later trial on distinct offences.

Conclusion: The plea against the later trial failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether separate trial for offences under the Arms Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was illegal for want of joinder under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is enabling in nature and permits joinder of offences in one trial, but does not compel the court to try all offences together. The decision to try the matters separately did not amount to any illegality.

Conclusion: The objection to separate trial was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the evidence established the identity and condition of the seized weapon and cartridges and whether the defence version was acceptable.

Analysis: The investigating officer and the armourer identified the weapon and cartridges in court, the sten-gun bore a number, and the armourer found the weapon working and the cartridges live. The claim that the articles were not properly traced through the malkhana did not create a reasonable doubt on identity. The defence version of prior unlawful custody was also found unacceptable, there being no supporting complaint to the police authorities and no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version.

Conclusion: The prosecution evidence was accepted and the defence was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained because none of the legal and factual challenges displaced the findings against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A later prosecution is not barred where the earlier trial did not decide the same offences, and Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only authorises, but does not mandate, joint trial of connected offences.

---