Sukum Ram Koch And Ors. Accused, v. Krishna Deb Sarma Complainant, Opposite Party.

The Judgment of the Court was as follows:—

Mukerji, J.:— The whole question in this Rule is whether an acquittal under sec. 247, Cr. P.C, is an acquittal which would bar a further trial under sec. 403, sub-sec. (1), Cr. 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 Re: Guggilapu Paddaya of Palakot (1), in which it has been pointed out that the non-mention of sec. 247 in the explanation to sec. 403 is suggestive of this interpretation and that a contrary view would make sec. 247 illusory. The authorities bearing on the question have been fully considered in the case of In re Dudekula Lal Sahib (2). I am also of opinion that the cases of this Court, namely, Bishnu Ghose v. King-Emperor (3) and Kedarnath v. Adhin Manjhi (4), though they do not directly touch this question, lend ample support to this view.

I would accordingly make this Rule absolute and quash the proceedings pending against the Petitioners.

Graham, J.:— I think the case is clearly covered by the Rule of autre fois acquit. It is plain from the complainant's own 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.

Whether the acquittal was under sec. 247 or under sec. 253, Cr. P.C, is immaterial, because the accused had been “tried” within the meaning of the word in sec. 403(1), Cr. P.C, and the effect of the acquittal under sec. 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.

S.C.M