Kolandai Chetty Vs. Perumal Kavundan - Court Judgment
|Cases Referred||Baijnath Sahay v. Emperor|
.....that no person shall be tried for a second time for the same offence for which he is tried and convicted or acquitted once. what is provided under section 300(1) of cr.p.c. is only a reassurance of the constitutional right guaranteed under article 20(2). the principle behind this prescription under section 300 of cr.p.c. is to avoid double jeopardy to a person. if the code recognizes such a distinction, it may make inroads into this concept of double jeopardy. but the concept of double jeopardy, to some extent, is allergic to service law. in many cases the supreme court has made it clear - (i) that the imposition of a punishment and the denial of promotion did not amount to double jeopardy, and (ii) that the conviction by a criminal court and the disciplinary proceedings initiated..........sub-divisional magistrate,. dharmapuri, and ordered to pay compensation of rs. 25 under s. ,22, cattle trespass act. although there were four adjournments of the trial he never engaged a vakil; but after he was convicted, he moved the sessions judge in revision, this court in revision of the sessions judge's order, and this court again direct.2. the cattle trespass case was tried by the sub-magistrate, tirupathur, north arcot, and the accused who were as lax there, as the petitioner in this case, were convicted. the petitioner wants revision on the assumption that the sub-magistrate is a better judge of fact than the sub-divisional magistrate: there is no such presumption. the existence of the two judgments may assist petitioner in a departmental enquiry into his conduct; but not in.....
1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,. Dharmapuri, and ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 25 under S. ,22, Cattle Trespass Act. Although there were four adjournments of the trial he never engaged a vakil; but after he was convicted, he moved the Sessions Judge in revision, this Court in revision of the Sessions Judge's order, and this Court again direct.
2. The cattle trespass case was tried by the Sub-Magistrate, Tirupathur, North Arcot, and the accused who were as lax there, as the petitioner in this case, were convicted. The petitioner wants revision on the assumption that the Sub-Magistrate is a better Judge of fact than the Sub-Divisional Magistrate: There is no such presumption. The existence of the two judgments may assist petitioner in a departmental enquiry into his conduct; but not in revisional proceedings.
3. The only other ground is that the Court could not award compensation unless it was claimed in the complaint. There is no such restriction in the statute and the petitioner relies upon the opinion of a single Judge in Baijnath Sahay v. Emperor : AIR1923Pat292 which with all respect I am not prepared to follow. Rs. 25 seems to be fair in the circumstances of the case.
4. The petition is dismissed.