Case Law Details

Case Name : Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2006
Date of Judgement/Order : 01/02/2011
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (987)

In a case of bounced cheque, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled a person convicted for issuing the instrument cannot be prosecuted again on the charge of cheating about the same cheque. The cheque issued without sufficient balance in the account is a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The offence of cheating is under Section 420 of the IPC. In this case, Kolla Veera vs Gorantla Rao, the convict submitted he was found guilty in the cheque case; so he could not be punished a second time for issuing the cheque as a case of cheating.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1160 OF 2006

Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao & Anr.

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 07th October, 2005 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 1999 and Criminal Revision Case No. 312 of 1999. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

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 tried 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.

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) of section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.”

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 facts. 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 was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. The Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.

………………………J.

[MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ………………………J. FEBRUARY 01, 2011 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

More Under Corporate Law

Posted Under

Category : Corporate Law (3927)
Type : Judiciary (11695)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *