@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
T. Sudanthiram, J.@mdashThis Petitioner herein is the fourth accused in C.C. No. 366 of 1996 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, and he was facing charge for the offence u/s 36-A of Forest Act, 1882 and E of Tamil Nadu Sandal Wood Possession Rules, 1970 and Tamil Nadu Sandal Wood Transit Rules, 1967. The case was pending from the year 1996. The District Forest Officer has filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, u/s 257 Code of Criminal Procedure along with Chief Conservator of Forests Letter dated 09.08.2008 to withdraw the case and the learned Judicial Magistrate also has passed an order on 08.09.2008 permitting the prosecution to withdraw the case and released the accused u/s 257 Code of Criminal Procedure Thereafter, the District Forest Officer had filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 1492 of 2009 on 15.05.2009 before the same Court seeking to reopen the closed C.C. No. 366 of 1996 and the learned Magistrate also has passed an order without any notice to the Petitioner on the same day and reopened the case and renumbered it as C.C. No. 142 of 2009.
2. The Petitioner herein now seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him in C.C. No. 142 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate having allowed the prosecution to withdraw the case u/s 257 Code of Criminal Procedure and having acquitted the accused as per Section 257 Code of Criminal Procedure it is not possible to reopen the case and to try the accused which is barred u/s 300 Code of Criminal Procedure It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that even otherwise the occurrence relates to the year 1994 and the case was filed originally in the year 1996 now more than 14 years had elapsed and it is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India wherein the Petitioner has got a right for speedy trial.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) was heard. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the records.
5. Section 257 Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:
257. Withdrawal of complaint.-If a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in any case under this Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn.
As per Section 257 Code of Criminal Procedure, the leaned Magistrate permits for withdrawal of the complaint then as a result of it, the accused is acquitted. Once the accused is acquitted, Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure stands as a bar to try the accused once again.
6. Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:
300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.
(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.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charges might have been made against him at the former trial under Sub-section (1) of Section 220.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged u/s 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of Section 188 of this Code.
Explanation. The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section.
T.SUDANTHIRAM, J.
Jrl
As per Clause 5 of Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure, only if a person is discharged, he could be tried again. But, if a person is acquitted, he could not be tried again for the same offence.
7. As already observed, the Petitioner being acquitted as per Section 257 Code of Criminal Procedure, he cannot be tried once again as per Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure Hence, the proceedings against the Petitioner in C.C. No. 142 of 2009, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, is quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
