Skip to content


Suku Ram Koch and ors. Vs. Krishna Deb Sarma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Cal189
AppellantSuku Ram Koch and ors.
RespondentKrishna Deb Sarma
Cases Referred and Kedar Nath Biswas v. Adhin Majhi
Excerpt:
- mukerji, j.1. the whole question in this rule is whether an acquittal under section 247, criminal p.c. is an acquittal which would bar a further trial under section 403, sub-section (1), criminal p.c. the decision of this question turns upon the meaning of the word ' tried ' as used in that sub-section. i am clearly of opinion that the word ' tried ' there used does not, necessarily import a decision of the case on the merits, but only refers to the nature of the proceedings that were had ; or in other words, means that the proceedings in which the acquittal was passed were in the nature of a trial. i entirely agree with the view taken by the madras high court in the case of in re : guggilapu paddaya [1911] 31 mad. 253, in which it has been pointed out that the non-mention of section 247.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. The whole question in this Rule is whether an acquittal under Section 247, Criminal P.C. is an acquittal which would bar a further trial under Section 403, Sub-section (1), Criminal P.C. The decision of this question turns upon the meaning of the word ' tried ' as used in that sub-section. I am clearly of opinion that the word ' tried ' there used does not, necessarily import a decision of the case on the merits, but only refers to the nature of the proceedings that were had ; or in other words, means that the proceedings in which the acquittal was passed were in the nature of a trial. I entirely agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of In re : Guggilapu Paddaya [1911] 31 Mad. 253, in which it has been pointed out that the non-mention of Section 247 in the explanation to Section 403 is suggestive of this interpretation and that a contrary view would make Section 247 illusory. The authorities bearing on the question have been fully considered in the case of In re : Dudekula Lal Sahib [1917] 40 Mad. 976. I am also of opinion that the cases of this Court, namely Bishun Das Ghosh v. King-Emperor [1903] 7 C.W.N. 493, and Kedar Nath Biswas v. Adhin Majhi [1903] 7 C.W.N. 711 though they do not directly touch this question, lend ample support to this view. I would accordingly make the rule absolute and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners.

Graham. J.

2. I think the case is clearly covered by the rule of autrefois acquit. It is plain from the complainant's statement that he was merely presenting before the Court the same complaint that he had formerly made and upon the same facts. The previous case having ended in acquittal the accused could not, so long as that order remained in force, be prosecuted again on the same set of facts.

3. Whether the acquittal was under Section 247 or under Section 253, Criminal P.C. is immaterial because the accused had been 'tried ' within the meaning of the word in Section 403(1), Criminal P.C. and the effect of the acquittal under Section 247 is to bar trial on the same facts. For these reasons I agree that the rule should be made absolute, and the proceedings quashed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //