Page 1

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

Page 2

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.  

2

Page 3

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  

3

Page 4

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  

4

Page 5

(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.)  

5

Page 6

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  

6

Page 7

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  

7

Page 8

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  

8

Page 9

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,  

9

Page 10

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.

10

Page 11

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  

11

Page 12

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   

12

Page 13

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  

13

Page 14

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  

14

Page 15

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  

15

Page 16

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  

16

Page 17

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