advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Secs. 482 Cr.P.C. r/w Sec.186 Cr.P.C. - Explosives dispatched from a single place to three different destinations - Unloaded explosives were used in three different criminal activities in the above said three different places - Registration of 3 F.I.R.S - High court allowed the petition under sec.186 Cr.P.C. and directed to discontinue the subsequent and third F.I.R. Proceedings - Apex court set aside the High court order as the Offences committed are not the one and same expect loading of Explosives at one place = State of Rajasthan …..Appellant versus Bhagwan Das Agrawal & Others ….Respondents = judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41097

   Secs. 482 Cr.P.C. r/w Sec.186 Cr.P.C. - Explosives dispatched from a single place to three different destinations - Unloaded explosives were used in three different criminal activities in the above said three different places - Registration of 3 F.I.R.S - High court allowed the petition under sec.186 Cr.P.C. and directed to discontinue the subsequent and third F.I.R. Proceedings - Apex court set aside the High court order as the Offences committed are not the one and same expect loading of Explosives at one place =    

Whether the offences committed in different places in 3 different manners can be discontinued due to supply of explosives from one place ? = No

186. High Court to decide, in case of  doubt,  district  where
            inquiry or trial shall take place.-  Where two or  more  Courts
            have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises
            as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that  offence,
            the question shall be decided --


                 (a)   if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court,
                 by that High Court;


                 (b)  if the Courts are not subordinate  to  the  same  High
                 Court, by the High Court within the local limits  of  whose
                 appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were  first
                 commenced,


            and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that  offence
            shall be discontinued.”

Friedland in Double Jeopardy (Oxford 1969) says at  p.
           108:
           “The trouble with this approach is that it is vague and hazy and
           conceals the thought processes of the  court.  Such  an  inexact
           test must depend upon the individual impressions of  the  judges
           and can give  little  guidance  for  future  decisions.  A  more
           serious consequence is the fact that a decision in one case that
           two offences are ‘substantially the same’ may  compel  the  same
           result in another case involving the same two offences where the
           circumstances may be such that a second  prosecution  should  be
           permissible....”
whether a crime and the offence of conspiracy to commit it
           are different offences. 
This Court said: (SCR p. 827)

           “The offence of conspiracy to commit  a  crime  is  a  different
           offence from the crime that is  the  object  of  the  conspiracy
           because the conspiracy precedes the commission of the crime  and
           is complete before the crime is attempted or completed,  equally
           the crime attempted or completed does not require the element of
           conspiracy as one of its ingredients. They are, therefore, quite
           separate offences.”

14.      In the instant case,  as  noticed  above,  the  nature  and
   manner  of  offences  committed  by  the  accused  persons  are  not
   identical but are different, 
for example, in respect  of  FIR  Crime
   No.130 of 2010 the accused persons  in  connivance  with  respondent
   No.1 delivered 103 trucks of explosives to  the  Magazines  of  M/s.
   Ajay Explosives which belonged to Shiv Charan Heda and 60 trucks  of
   explosives to M/s. B.M. Traders which belonged to Deepa Heda. It was
   alleged that the Magazines of M/s. Ganesh Explosives and M/s. Sangam
   Explosives were not operational since many years and with the forged
   documentation in the name of the  said  firms  the  explosives  were
   purchased  by  M/s.  Ajay  Explosives  and  M/s.  B.M.  Traders  and
   subsequently those explosives were sold to some unknown persons.  
In
   respect of those  FIRs,  one  accused,  a  resident  of  Nepal,  was
   arrested and from whose custody 498 non electronic  detonators  were
   recovered.  
In respect of another FIR, during investigation, it  has
   come on the record that those explosives  were  sold  for  terrorist
   activities.
   15.      Offence means any act or omission made punishable  by  law.
   The fountain head of all the three cases  may  be  at  Dholpur  from
   where truck loaded with explosives moved to  different  destinations
   but from that it cannot be said that the acts  and  omissions  which
   constitute the offence are the same. 
Same offence, in  our  opinion,
   would mean that acts and omissions which constitute the offence  are one and the same. 
 Except the allegation that  the  explosives  were
   loaded at Dholpur, the mode and manner  in  which  the  offence  was
   committed at different places are not the same.   
As  such,  in  our
   opinion, the provision of Section 186 of the Code is  not  attracted
   in the facts of the present case.  Hence, the High  court  erred  in
   passing the impugned order.


   16.      In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are  of  the
   considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the High  Court
   is to be set aside.  Consequently, the appeal preferred by the State
   of Rajasthan is allowed and the  appeal  preferred  by  the  accused
   stands disposed of.
        

                                                 REPORTABLE




                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  2118 OF 2013
     (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8402 of 2011)




   State of Rajasthan                                    …..Appellant
                                   versus
   Bhagwan Das Agrawal & Others                    ….Respondents
                                    WITH
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  2119 OF 2013
     (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2180 of 2012)


   Girdhar & Others                                      …..Appellants
                                   versus
   State of Rajasthan & Another
   ….Respondents




                               J U D G M E N T


   M.Y. EQBAL, J.


            Leave granted.




   2.       Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15th July,  2011
   passed by the High Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  Principal  Seat  at
   Jabalpur, whereby the petition filed by  respondent  No.  1  herein
   (Bhagwan Das Agrawal) under Section 482 of  the  Code  of  Criminal
   Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) seeking relief to hold  that
   the proceedings based on the subsequent and third FIR registered in
   Dholpur (Rajasthan) as Crime No. 427/2010 under Section 5/9B, 9C of
   the Explosives Act, 1884, in view of the provisions of Section  186
   of Cr.P.C., be discontinued, was allowed,  the  appellant-State  of
   Rajasthan has preferred the special leave petition being  No.  8402
   of 2011.


   3.       The facts and circumstances giving  rise  to  the  present
   appeal are that in respect  of  alleged  unauthorized  and  illegal
   supply of explosives by M/s.  Rajasthan  Explosives  and  Chemicals
   Ltd., Dholpur (for short, “RECL”), in which respondent No. 1 herein
   Bhagwan  Das  Agrawal  was  Managing  Director,  to   M/s.   Ganesh
   Explosives, Sagar during the period from 17.4.2010 to 29.6.2010  in
   contravention of the Explosives  Act,  a  case  at  Police  Station
   Baheria, District Sagar was registered on  13.7.2010  as  FIR/Crime
   No. 161/2010.   The police after due  investigation  filed  charge-
   sheet on 18.11.2010 for offences  punishable  under  Sections  420,
   467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 and 34 of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (for
   short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 9B, 9C of the Explosives Substances Act,
   1884 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908  in
   the Court of concerned  Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class,  Sagar
   against 11 persons including four persons from RECL viz. respondent
   No. 1  herein  (Managing  Director),  K.  Edward  Kelly  (Director,
   Operations), Vinod Kumar Garg (Chief Manager, Marketing) and Rakesh
   Kumar Agrawal (Manager, Marketing).  The array of accused  persons,
   inter alia, included Devendra Singh  Thakur,  Jai  Kishan  Ashwani,
   Rajendra Choubey, Gopal Shakyawar, Shiv Charan Heda, Deepa Heda and
   Alakh Das Gupta.  After filing of the charge-sheet, the  Magistrate
   took  cognizance  of  the  offences.   Similar  charge-sheet  under
   Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201/34, IPC read with  Sections
   9B and 9C of the Explosives Substances Act, 1884 and Sections 4,  5
   and 6 of  the  Explosive  Substances  Act,  1908  was  filed  after
   investigation into another FIR lodged at Police  Station  Chanderi,
   District Ashok Nagar  as FIR/ Crime No. 310/2010 on  26.8.2010  for
   the supply  of  explosives  during  the  period  from  1.4.2010  to
   30.6.2010 by RECL to another firm M/s. Sangam Explosives,  Halanpur
   in Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar.  This charge-sheet was filed  in
   the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, First  Class,  Chanderi
   against 8 persons including four  from RECL viz. respondent  No.  1
   herein (Managing Director), K. Edward Kelly (Director, Operations),
   Vinod Kumar  Garg  (Chief  Manager,  Marketing)  and  Rakesh  Kumar
   Agrawal (Manager, Marketing).  The array of accused persons,  inter
   alia, included Rajendra Kumar Choubey,  Anil  Dhupad,  Shiv  Charan
   Heda and Jai Kishan Ashwani.  In this case too, the Magistrate took
   cognizance  of  the  offences  on  25.11.2010.    Subsequently   on
   5.9.2010, in respect of supplies made by  RECL  during  the  period
   from 1.4.2010 to 5.9.2010 to M/s. Ganesh Explosives, Sagar  and  to
   M/s. Sangam Explosives, Chanderi, third FIR on the report submitted
   by a Committee constituted to investigate into a news published  in
   the newspaper regarding disappearance of trucks carrying explosives
   was lodged at Police Station Dholpur as FIR/Crime No. 427/2010  and
   the police after due investigation filed charge-sheet on  4.12.2010
   against 16 persons for offences under Section 420, 465,  467,  468,
   471, 120-B, IPC read with Sections 5, 9B and 9C of  the  Explosives
   Substances Act,  1884  and  Sections  5  and  6  of  the  Explosive
   Substances Act, 1908 in the Court  of  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,
   Dholpur, Rajasthan including the four office bearers of  RECL  viz.
   respondent No.  1  herein  (Managing  Director),  K.  Edward  Kelly
   (Director, Operations), Vinod Kumar Garg (Chief Manager, Marketing)
   and Rakesh Kumar Agrawal (Manager, Marketing). The array of accused
   persons, inter alia  included  Shiv  Charan  Heda,  Rajendra  Kumar
   Choubey, Jai Kishan, Ashwani (also arrayed as acused in  Sagar  and
   Chanderi Courts) and Jagdish Soni, Uday Lal Kabra, Lalit  Gangwani,
   Girdhar Bhai, Arvind, Sunil, Damji Bhai, Jitender Taank  &  Chimman
   Lal.  The Magistrate took congnizance of the offences on 4.12.2010.
     It is thus clear that the charge-sheets were filed for  the  same
   offences against the officers (four in No.) of  RECL  as  also  the
   concerned  persons  of  M/s.  Ganesh  Explosives  and  M/s.  Sangam
   Explosives with the only difference that first FIR at  Baheria  was
   for supply made to M/s. Ganesh Explosives, second FIR  at  Chanderi
   for supply made to M/s. Sangam Explosives  and  the  third  FIR  at
   Dholpur for supplies made both to M/s. Ganesh Explosives  and  M/s.
   Sangam Explosives.   The  final  outcome  was  that  for  the  same
   offences, cognizance came to be  taken  by  the  courts  at  Sagar,
   Chanderi and Dholpur.


   4.       As per FIR/Crime No. 161 of 2010, 60 trucks  of  explosive
   material outbound from RECL, Dholpur  to  M/s.  Ganesh  Explosives,
   P.S. Baheria (M.P.)  actually  reached  (i)  M/s.  Ajay  Explosive,
   Ahmadnagar (Maharashtra) (ii) M/s. B.M. Traders, Bywara (M.P.), and
   (iii) M/s. B.M. Traders, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). FIR/Crime No. 310 of
   2010 recorded that 103 trucks of explosive material  outbound  from
   RECL, Dholpur to M/s. Sangam Explosives  at  P.S.  Chanderi  (M.P.)
   actually reached (i) M/s. B.M. Traders, Bywara (M.P.) and (ii) M/s.
   Ajay Traders, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).  As per FIR/Crime No. 427/2010,
   M/s. RECL, Dholpur sold explosive material illegally  to  (i)  M/s.
   Ganesh  Explosives,  Sagar   (M.P.)    and     (ii)   M/s.   Sangam
   Explosives, Ashok Nagar (M.P.) after the expiry of their  licences.
   The same never reached the destinations and were diverted in  their
   middle to Bhilwara (Raj.), Bywara (M.P.) etc. The  explosives  were
   also  sold for terrorist activities which stood revealed  from  FIR
   No.130/2010 P.S. Karol Bagh, New Delhi.


   5.       It was alleged in the petition filed by respondent  No.  1
   herein before the High  Court  that  RECL  was  incorporated  as  a
   private limited company in 1980; the factory of  RECL  at  Dholpur,
   Rajasthan got commissioned in 1981 & since then regular  production
   of explosives has been taking place there;   and  RECL  was  making
   regular supplies amongst other dealers to M/s. Ganesh Explosives as
   also to M/s. Sangam Explosives.   It  was  alleged  that  what  was
   investigated and charge-sheeted by the police of P.S.  Baheria  and
   P.S. Chanderi was put together  and  re-investigated  by  the  P.S.
   Dholpur.   It was further alleged that when cognizance of  selfsame
   offence is taken by more than one court, then in such circumstances
   Section 186 Cr.P.C. comes into play in order to cap such  situation
   and as the first  court  happened  to  be  the  Court  of  Judicial
   Magistrate, First Class, Sagar, M.P. to have initiated  proceedings
   by taking congnizance of the offence  upon  submission  of  charge-
   sheet by the police of P.S. Baheria in FIR/Crime No. 161/2010, that
   court being the court in whose appellate criminal jurisdiction  the
   proceedings first commenced was the court vested with the requisite
   jurisdiction under  Section  186  Cr.P.C.  to  decide  and  make  a
   declaration.  It was alleged that the  sum  and  substance  of  the
   allegations in the cases registered at P.S. Baheria, P.S.  Chanderi
   and P.S. Dholpur happen to  be  identical,  relating  to  the  same
   occurrence/same transaction as also the same offence  i.e.  illegal
   supply of explosives contrary to the Explosives Rules  by  RECL  to
   M/s. Ganesh Explosives and M/s.  Sangam  Explosives.   Accordingly,
   prayer was made to declare the criminal proceedings in the Court of
   Chief Judicial  Magistrate,  Dholpur  being  violative  of  Section
   186(b) Cr.P.C. and to discontinue the same.


   6.       The High Court by the impugned order dated 15.7.2011 while
   allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein  purportedly
   to give effect to the provision of Section 186(b)  of  Cr.P.C.  has
   observed as under:
                 “On perusal of third FIR and charge  sheet  submitted  in
        that respect, it is apparently clear that in contravention of  the
        provisions  of  the  Explosives  Act,  Rajasthan  Explosives   and
        Chemicals Ltd. (RECL in short) Dholpur supplied explosives to M/s.
        Ganesh Agency, Sagar and M/s. Sangam Agency, Chanderi.  On perusal
        of both earlier FIRs, it is revealed that  there  are  11  accused
        persons facing trial in Sagar (M.P.) and  8  accused  persons  are
        facing trial in Ashok Nagar (M.P.) Court.   In  the  charge  sheet
        submitted on the  basis  of  subsequent  and  third  FIR,  accused
        persons and alleged offences are the same.


        xxx                       xxx                   xxx


                 Admittedly, Rajasthan Court had taken cognizance  of  the
        offence, which was already a subject matter of  the  case  already
        pending in the court of Sagar and also taken  congnizance  of  the
        case which has already been pending in the court  of  Ashok  Nagar
        (M.P.).  The proceedings has  first  commenced  in  Sagar  and  in
        Chanderi respectively within the jurisdiction of the High Court of
        Madhya  Pradesh,  hence,  subsequent  proceedings  initiated   and
        registered in Dholpur Court stands discontinued and is  liable  to
        be discontinued.


                 Needless to write that this order will not be  a  bar  to
        deal with the offences which are not the  subject  matter  of  the
        cases pending already in the courts of Madhya Pradesh.”


   7.             In the special leave petition,  the  appellant-State
   of Rajasthan has contended that in connivance with respondent No. 1
   herein 103 trucks of explosives were delivered to the Magazines  of
   M/s. Ajay Explosives which belongs  to  Shiv  Charan  Heda  and  60
   trucks of explosives to M/s. B.M. Traders which  belongs  to  Deepa
   Heda, both relatives of Jai Kishan Ashwani.  It is alleged that the
   magazines of M/s. Ganesh Explosives and M/s. Sangam Explosives  are
   not operational since many years and with the forged  documentation
   in the name of said firms the explosives  were  purchased  by  M/s.
   Ajay Explosives and M/s. B.M. Traders and the explosives were  then
   sold to some unknown  persons  which  are  serious  threat  to  the
   security of the nation and one such example is the registration  of
   FIR in Crime No. 130/2010 P.S. Karol Bagh under Sections 4 and 5 of
   the Explosive Substances Act in which the accused Loknath  Pant,  a
   resident of Nepal was  arrested  and  in  whose  custody  498  non-
   electronic detonator and 29.12 meter fuse wire were  recovered  and
   in the packing of  the  cartons  it  was  revealed  that  the  said
   explosives were from RECL, Dholpur.  It is contended that the  High
   Court has erred in law and fact by discontinuing the proceedings at
   Dholpur (Rajasthan)  because  cause  of  action  arose  within  the
   jurisdiction of court at Dholpur and the  territorial  jurisdiction
   of a court regarding criminal offence is to be decided on the basis
   of place of occurrence of the incident and  not  on  the  basis  of
   where complaint was filed.  It is further alleged  in  the  special
   leave petition that even the  Committee  comprising  Sub-Divisional
   Magistrate, Deputy Superintendent of Police and General Manager  of
   District  Industrial  Centre  in  its  report  submitted   to   the
   Superintendent of Police, Dholpur has stated that the manufacturing
   licence of RECL was valid till 31.3.2010 and the said company  sold
   the explosive material to M/s. Ganesh Explosives  and  M/s.  Sangam
   Explosives from the month of April 2010 till  June  2010  illegally
   when their licences too had expired and RECL has sold the  material
   in excess to the stipulated quantity mentioned in the licence.   It
   was found by the Committee that there  was  no  receipt/proof  with
   RECL whether the trucks reached the destinations or not and further
   RECL had violated the Explosive Rules.   It  is  alleged  that  the
   payments in lieu of sold explosive materials were made through  the
   Demand Drafts of ICICI Bank, Yes Bank, Axis Bank and Indusland Bank
   situated at Rajkot and the  payment  was  being  made  through  the
   agents of Ganga Enterprises,  Sidhnath  Enterprises,  Govind  Kripa
   Enterprises, Thakkar Enterprises, Bhagwati  Enterprises  and  Jyoti
   Enterprises, Rajkot.  These  agents  used  to  prepare  the  demand
   drafts in the name of RECL and give to one Jagdish Soni (an accused
   in FIR No.427/10 at Dholpur) who used to pass on the demand  drafts
   to Shiv Charan Heda (an  accused  in  all  the  FIRs).   These  six
   agents, who had been  arrested  on  22.12.2010  by  Dholpur  Police
   Station upon a supplementary charge-sheet being filed and have  not
   been arrayed as accused in the proceedings pending in the courts at
   Sagar  and  Chanderi  (Madhya  Pradesh),  have  been  impleaded  as
   respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in the present proceedings.   It  is  lastly
   alleged that  the  respondent  could  not  have  filed  the  second
   petition because he along with other office  bearers  of  RECL  has
   withdrawn the first petition seeking  quashing  of  proceedings  in
   Crime No. 161/2010 registered at P.S. Baheria on  the  ground  that
   they were already facing trial in Crime No. 427/2010 registered  by
   the Dholpur Police on the same set of charges and  no  liberty  was
   granted by the High Court to file a fresh petition.


   8.      The respondents impleaded in SLP(Crl.) No.  8402  of  2011,
   have filed SLP (Crl.) No. 2180 of 2012 challenging the order  dated
   4.1.2012 passed by the High Court of  Rajasthan,  Bench  at  Jaipur
   whereby the habeas corpus petition filed by them  was  disposed  of
   holding that the question of remand of the  accused-petitioners  in
   FIR No. 427/2010, Kotwali Dholpur by the  court  in  the  State  of
   Rajasthan was in accordance with law or not and  the  detention  of
   the accused-petitioners is illegal, are the questions which are  to
   be adjudicated only after the issue of jurisdiction  of  courts  in
   Rajasthan pending before the Apex Court in SLP(Crl.)  No.  8402  of
   2011 is decided.  The said SLP(Crl.) No. 2180 of 2012 was  directed
   to be put up along with SLP(Crl.) No. 8402 of  2011.   Hence,  both
   the special leave petitions are before us.


   9.       While issuing notice in SLP(Crl.) No.. 8402 of 2011,  this
   Court on 25.11.2011 passed the following order:
                 “Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for
        respondent no.1 on caveat stated that though the  High  Court  has
        quashed the proceedings at the Dholpur  Court  in  Rajasthan,  the
        respondents have no objection if the proceedings are continued  at
        Dholpur, but in that case the proceedings arising  from  the  same
        set of facts in the two Courts in Madhra Pradesh,  i.e.  at  Sagar
        and Chanderi may have to be quashed.


                 Issue notice  to  the  non-appearing  respondent  on  the
        limited  question  whether  the  proceedings  should  continue  at
        Dholpur or at the  two  places  (Sagar  and  Chanderi)  in  Madhya
        Pradesh.”




   10.      The short question that falls  for  consideration  in  the
   instant case is  as to whether the proceedings should  continue  at
   Dholpur or at  the  two  places  (Sagar  and  Chanderi)  in  Madhya
   Pradesh.


   11.      Section 186, Cr.P.C., which deals with  the  power  of  the
   High Court to decide, in case of doubt, the district  where  inquiry
   or trial shall take place, is extracted hereinbelow:-


            “186. High Court to decide, in case of  doubt,  district  where
            inquiry or trial shall take place.-  Where two or  more  Courts
            have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises
            as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that  offence,
            the question shall be decided --


                 (a)   if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court,
                 by that High Court;


                 (b)  if the Courts are not subordinate  to  the  same  High
                 Court, by the High Court within the local limits  of  whose
                 appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were  first
                 commenced,


            and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that  offence
            shall be discontinued.”

   12.      From bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is manifest
   that the main object and intention of the  Legislature  in  enacting
   the  provision  is  to  prevent  the  accused  persons  from   being
   unnecessarily harassed  for the same offences alleged to  have  been
   committed within the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  more  than  one
   courts.  In order to avoid unnecessary harassment of the accused  to
   appear and face trial in more than one courts,  necessary  direction
   is to be issued to discontinue the subsequent proceedings  in  other
   courts.  The provision is based on the principle of convenience  and
   expediency.  However, the sine qua non for the application  of  this
   provision is that the cases instituted in different  courts  are  in
   respect of the same offence arising out of the same  occurrence  and
   that the same transaction and that the parties  are  the  same.   In
   other words, the persons implicated as an accused in different cases
   must be the same.  If these conditions are satisfied then subsequent
   proceeding  has to be discontinued.


   13.      Chapter XXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure  deals  with
   the provisions with regard to the enquiries and trials.  Section 300
   debars the Court from proceeding with the trial in  respect  of  the
   same offence for which  the  accused  has  already  been  tried  and
   convicted or acquitted. However, a person convicted for any  offence
   may be afterwards tried if such act constituted a different  offence
   from that of which he was convicted.  This Court  elaborately  dealt
   with the provisions contained in Section 300 Cr.P.C. in the case  of
   State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC page  655.   Some  of
   the paragraphs are worth to be quoted hereinafter.

           “26. Broadly speaking, a protection against a second or multiple
           punishment for the same offence, technical  complexities  aside,
           includes a protection against re-prosecution after acquittal,  a
           protection  against  re-prosecution  after  conviction   and   a
           protection against double or multiple punishment  for  the  same
           offence. These protections have  since  received  constitutional
           guarantee under Article 20(2). But  difficulties  arise  in  the
           application of the principle in the context of what is meant  by
           “same offence”. The principle in American law is stated thus:
           “The proliferation of technically different offences encompassed
           in a single  instance  of  crime  behaviour  has  increased  the
           importance of defining the scope of the  offence  that  controls
           for purposes of the double jeopardy guarantee.
           Distinct statutory  provisions  will  be  treated  as  involving
           separate offences for double jeopardy  purposes  only  if  ‘each
           provision requires proof of an additional fact which  the  other
           does  not’  (Blockburger  v.  United  States).  Where  the  same
           evidence suffices to prove both crimes, they are  the  same  for
           double jeopardy purposes,  and  the  clause  forbids  successive
           trials and  cumulative  punishments  for  the  two  crimes.  The
           offences must be joined in one  indictment  and  tried  together
           unless the defendant requests that they be tried separately.


           27. The expression “the same offence”, “substantially  the  same
           offence” “in effect the same offence” or “practically the same”,
           have not done much to lessen  the  difficulty  in  applying  the
           tests  to  identify  the  legal  common  denominators  of  “same
           offence”. Friedland in Double Jeopardy (Oxford 1969) says at  p.
           108:
           “The trouble with this approach is that it is vague and hazy and
           conceals the thought processes of the  court.  Such  an  inexact
           test must depend upon the individual impressions of  the  judges
           and can give  little  guidance  for  future  decisions.  A  more
           serious consequence is the fact that a decision in one case that
           two offences are ‘substantially the same’ may  compel  the  same
           result in another case involving the same two offences where the
           circumstances may be such that a second  prosecution  should  be
           permissible....”


           28. In order that the prohibition is attracted the same act must
           constitute an offence under more than one Act. If there are  two
           distinct and separate offences with different ingredients  under
           two different enactments, a double punishment is not barred.  In
           Leo Roy Frey v.  Superintendent,  District  Jail,  the  question
           arose whether a crime and the offence of conspiracy to commit it
           are different offences. This Court said: (SCR p. 827)
           “The offence of conspiracy to commit  a  crime  is  a  different
           offence from the crime that is  the  object  of  the  conspiracy
           because the conspiracy precedes the commission of the crime  and
           is complete before the crime is attempted or completed,  equally
           the crime attempted or completed does not require the element of
           conspiracy as one of its ingredients. They are, therefore, quite
           separate offences.”




   14.      In the instant case,  as  noticed  above,  the  nature  and
   manner  of  offences  committed  by  the  accused  persons  are  not
   identical but are different, 
for example, in respect  of  FIR  Crime
   No.130 of 2010 the accused persons  in  connivance  with  respondent
   No.1 delivered 103 trucks of explosives to  the  Magazines  of  M/s.
   Ajay Explosives which belonged to Shiv Charan Heda and 60 trucks  of
   explosives to M/s. B.M. Traders which belonged to Deepa Heda. It was
   alleged that the Magazines of M/s. Ganesh Explosives and M/s. Sangam
   Explosives were not operational since many years and with the forged
   documentation in the name of the  said  firms  the  explosives  were
   purchased  by  M/s.  Ajay  Explosives  and  M/s.  B.M.  Traders  and
   subsequently those explosives were sold to some unknown persons.  
In
   respect of those  FIRs,  one  accused,  a  resident  of  Nepal,  was
   arrested and from whose custody 498 non electronic  detonators  were
   recovered.  
In respect of another FIR, during investigation, it  has
   come on the record that those explosives  were  sold  for  terrorist
   activities.
   15.      Offence means any act or omission made punishable  by  law.
   The fountain head of all the three cases  may  be  at  Dholpur  from
   where truck loaded with explosives moved to  different  destinations
   but from that it cannot be said that the acts  and  omissions  which
   constitute the offence are the same. 
Same offence, in  our  opinion,
   would mean that acts and omissions which constitute the offence  are one and the same. 
 Except the allegation that  the  explosives  were
   loaded at Dholpur, the mode and manner  in  which  the  offence  was
   committed at different places are not the same.   
As  such,  in  our
   opinion, the provision of Section 186 of the Code is  not  attracted
   in the facts of the present case.  Hence, the High  court  erred  in
   passing the impugned order.


   16.      In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are  of  the
   considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the High  Court
   is to be set aside.  Consequently, the appeal preferred by the State
   of Rajasthan is allowed and the  appeal  preferred  by  the  accused
   stands disposed of.






                                                            ….…………………………….J.
                                                   (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad)








                                                              …………………………….J.
                                                                (M.Y. Eqbal)
New Delhi,
December 17, 2013.
-----------------------
17


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.