Supreme Court of India
KOLLA VEERA RAGHAV RAO versus GORANTALA VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANR.
- Decided
- 1 February 2011
- Judges listed
- MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2011] 2 S.C.R. 364 · 2011 INSC 88
- Also cited as
- (2011) 2 SCC 703
- AIR 2011 SC 641
- (2011) 1 SCC(CIV) 547
- (2011) 1 SCC(CRI) 882
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
p. 365, margin A
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 07th October, 2005 passed by the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 1999 and Criminal Revision Case No. 312 of 1999.
p. 365, margin A
The facts have been set O\.lt in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
p. 365, margin B
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 t~ied 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.
p. 365, margin C
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." 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) A of section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof."
pp. 365–366, margin C
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
p. 366
facts. C 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
p. 366
was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. D The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. D.G. Appeal allowed.
p. 366