REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1160 OF 2006

Kolla Veera Raghav Rao ..Appellant

versus

Gorantla Venkateswara Rao & Anr. ..Respondents

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This  Appeal  has  been  filed  against  the  impugned  

judgment and order dated 07th October, 2005 passed by the  

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of  

1999 and Criminal Revision Case No. 312 of 1999.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment  

and hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever  

necessary.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  

appellant was already convicted under Section 138 of the  

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and hence he could not be  

again tried or punished on the same facts under Section 420  

or any other provision of IPC or any other statute.  We find  

force in this submission.

It may be noticed that there is a difference between  

the language used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of  

India and Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C..  Article 20(2) states:

“no person shall be prosecuted and punished for  the same offence more than once.”

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1160 OF 2006

-2-

On the other hand, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. States:

“300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to  be tried for same office__

(1) A  person  who  has  once  been  tried  by  a  Court  of  competent  jurisdiction  for  an  offence  and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall,  while  such  conviction  or  acquittal  remains  in  force, not be liable to be tried again for the  same offence, nor on the same facts for any other  offence for which a different charge from the one  made against him might have been made under sub- section (1) of section 221 or for which he might  have  been  convicted  under  sub-section  (2)  thereof.”

Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.  

is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution.  While,  

Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one  

can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more  

than once', Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can  

be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a  

different offence but on the same facts.

In  the  present  case,  although  the  offences  are  

different but the facts are the same.  Hence, Section 300(1)  

of  Cr.P.C.  applies.  Consequently,  the  prosecution  under  

Section 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.

The Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of  

the High Court is set aside.

...........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ...........................J. FEBRUARY 01, 2011 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]