Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.
1. In December 1921 J.M. Lakkar, the accused, was tried at the Criminal Sessions by my learned brother Mr. Justice Walmsley, and the Jury in respect of three alleged offences under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The charges were that on or about three dates, viz., 25th April 1921, 2nd May 1921 and 13th May 1921, he being the cashier of Messrs. Radhakissen Sewdut Roy and entrusted with three sums, viz., Rs. 5,000, Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,000, committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the said sums.
3. The Jury unanimously found him not guilty in respect of each of the three charges.
4. J.M. Laakkar is now charged again in respect of the same three matters but is a different form. It is now alleged that he, being a cashier in the above named firm, as aforesaid, with intent to defraud made false entries in the pukka rokur book of the said firm on or about the 25th April, 2nd May and 13th May 1921, in respect of the said three sums of money, and that he committed offences in respect thereof punishable under Section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. It was argued by the earned Counsel on his behalf that as J.M. Lakkar was acquitted at the last Sessions, he ought not to be tried on the present charges by reason of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6. It is conceded by the earned Counsel for the prosecution that the evidence which would be given in respect of the present charges, would be identical with the evidence given against the accused at the last Sessions, and the earned Counsel further informed me that the matter of the alleged false entries was investigated at the trial before my learned brother Mr. Justice Walmsley and the Jury. In other words, it was a part of the prosecution case, at the trial at the last Sessions, that the: accused had made the alleged false entries in the book for the purpose of a carrying out the alleged misappropriation, and with the intention of concealing his alleged breach of trust.
7. Since the case was argued last Friday I have considered the matter, and I have come to the conclusion that, on the facts of this case, the accused ought not to be put on his trial in respect of these charges. If he were so tried, in my judgment, it would in effect amount to trying him again for the same offences as those upon winch he has already been tried and acquitted by the Jury, although the charges now before the Court are framed in a different manner.
8. Apart from this, I am not at present satisfied that, if it had been thought advisable to lay before the Court at the trial at the last Sessions, the facts as constituting offence under Section 477A as well as offences under Section 408, a form of procedure could not have been adopted for the purpose of carrying out such object.
9. Under these circumstances, in my judgment, it would not b; right to put the accused man on his trial for the second time in respect of the same evidence and in respect of the same matters upon which he has already been unanimously acquitted by the Jury.
10. I confine my judgment to the facts of this case, and I hold that the accused is mot liable to be tried on the charges now made against him. Let the accused be discharged.