Case Name: Chudaman Narayan Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Citations: AIR 1969 Bom 1
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: J.Chandrachud and J.Deshpande
Date of Judgment: September 22, 1967
Facts of the case
Chudaman Narayan Patil was a Special Recovery Officer in the Jalgaon People’s Co-operative Bank Limited, working from January 20, 1962, to October 3, 1962. During his employment, he was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 583, which he was found to have committed criminal breach of trust for. He was prosecuted and found guilty under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. After the conclusion of the Sessions Case, two more chargesheets were filed against Patil under Section 409 IPC. He was accused of committing criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 53 received by him on July 23, 1962, and a similar offence in respect of a sum of Rs. 106 received by him on August 21, 1962. In the second case, he was accused of committing criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 106 received by him on July 23, 1962, and another sum of Rs. 106 received by him on August 21, 1962.
Issues raised before the Court:
- Whether the petitioner’s previous conviction under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1963 constitutes a bar to his trial in the two subsequent cases (Case No. 42 of 1966 and Case No. 43 of 1966) where he is accused of committing similar offences under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
Arguments of the Applicant:
The applicant, Chudaman Narayan Patil, has argued that the subsequent criminal cases filed against him, in which he is accused of committing criminal breach of trust, are barred by the provisions of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He contends that since he has already been convicted in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1963 for the offence of criminal breach of trust, the subsequent cases against him for similar offences cannot be entertained.
He further argues that the allegations made against him in the subsequent cases are related to the same period of his employment and involve similar transactions, and therefore, they are all part of the same transaction. He states that the subsequent cases are based on the same facts and evidence, and that the prosecution is seeking to harass him by filing multiple cases for the same offence.
The case of Sidh Nath v. Emperor and Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa (1906) ILR 29 Mad 126 also supports the applicant’s case. In both cases, it was held that if a person has been convicted and punished for an offence, he cannot be tried again for the same offence on the ground of fresh evidence which might have been produced at the first trial. These decisions lay down the principle that the accused should not be harassed by being subjected to repeated trials for the same offence.
Furthermore, the applicant submits that the purpose of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to prevent a person from being subjected to vexatious, oppressive and repeated trials. The section is based on the principle that a person should not be punished twice for the same offence. The section seeks to protect the accused from being harassed by repeated trials and from being punished twice for the same offence. Therefore, it is submitted that the provisions of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be given a liberal interpretation in favour of the accused.
In light of the above authorities and principles, the applicant contends that the second and third trials in the present case are illegal and without jurisdiction. The conviction and sentence passed in those trials are liable to be set aside.
- Judgment:
The judge considers the arguments and observes that the High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings, even if they are not barred under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 561-A of the Code preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of any Court. The Supreme Court has held that this power can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. Now, the question regarding the remaining cases has to be decided. The court finds that it is in the interests of justice to quash the proceedings. The petitioner has already undergone one trial, suffered a sentence and fine, and the amounts in question are small. Additionally, the petitioner is a government servant who will lose his job and have difficulty finding new employment if subjected to further trials. Therefore, the court sets aside the decision and quashes the proceedings.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the case discussed the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings and whether it is in the interests of justice to allow the case to proceed. The court found that although there is no legal bar to the prosecutions pending against the petitioner, it is not necessary to subject him to further trials. The court exercised its inherent power under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The decision was based on several factors, including the small amount in question, the petitioner’s previous sentence and fine, and the potential harm to his employment as a government servant. The judgment reflects the court’s consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and its commitment to securing the ends of justice.
written by Bhavika Adwani intern under legal vidhiya
