# Pulloo @ Shiv Pratap v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1491
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 10193 of 2010
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar-Ix
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pulloo-shiv-pratap-v-state-of-u-p-45526
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 300(1) - Is
based on maxim "nemo debet bis vexari",
which means that a person cannot be a
convicted on second time for an offence
which was involved in the offence with
which he was previously charged. In both
the trials incident is the same and they are
based on same prosecution story and
facts. Previous offence was tried by a
competent court in which applicant was
acquitted and the acquittal is in force.
Second trial of the applicant for the same
offence in which he has been acquitted is
barred by Section 300 Cr.P.C.

Where a person has been acquitted in a
trial and a supplementary chargesheet is
again submitted against him on the same
facts, then Section 300 Cr.P.C. bars the
trial of that person again not only for the
same offence but also for any other
offence on the same facts and also applies
to offence for which charges might have
been framed at the previous trial. (Para 10, 13,
15)

Application u/s 482 allowed.

Case law discussed-

## Text

2 All. Pulloo @ Shiv Pratap Vs. State of U.P.
1491
applications for bail, the same shall be
disposed of expeditiously in accordance
with law.

12. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1491

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-IX, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 10193 of 2010

Pulloo @ Shiv Pratap ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rakesh Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 300(1) - Is
based on maxim "nemo debet bis vexari",
which means that a person cannot be a
convicted on second time for an offence
which was involved in the offence with
which he was previously charged. In both
the trials incident is the same and they are
based on same prosecution story and
facts. Previous offence was tried by a
competent court in which applicant was
acquitted and the acquittal is in force.
Second trial of the applicant for the same
offence in which he has been acquitted is
barred by Section 300 Cr.P.C.

Where a person has been acquitted in a
trial and a supplementary chargesheet is
again submitted against him on the same
facts, then Section 300 Cr.P.C. bars the
trial of that person again not only for the
same offence but also for any other
offence on the same facts and also applies
to offence for which charges might have
been framed at the previous trial. (Para 10, 13,
15)

Application u/s 482 allowed.

Case law discussed-

1. Thakur Ram Vs. St. of Bih. AIR (1966) SC
911

2. Inguva Mallikarjun Vs. St. of A.P. (1978)
Cr.LJ 392 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned AGA for the State as
well as perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been moved by the applicant Pullo @
Shiv Pratap with prayer to quash the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1048 of
2005 (State Vs. Pullo @ Shiv Pratap),
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 325,
308, 324 IPC, arising out of Case Crime
No.99 of 2002, Police Station- Handia,
District- Allahabad.

3. Brief facts relating to the case are
that on 18.02.2002 First Information
Report was lodged by the informant Vijayi
as Case Crime No.99 of 2002 in Police
Station-
Handia,
District-
Allahabad
against the accused Ram Raj son of Sri
Nath,
Indramani
son
of
Gangaram
Chauhan, Shiv Mangal son of Indramani,
Pulloo son of Indramani, Indrajeet son of
Gangaram, Dayaram son of Shrinath, Ram
Shiromani son of Shankar, Ramdhani son
of Indraraj and Ramsajivan son of
Indraraj. It was alleged in the said FIR that
all the named accused came at the door of
the informant with weapons in their hands
and assaulted the informant and his family
1492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
members. After investigation charge sheet
was filed by the I.O. on 02.8.2002 agaisnt
Ramraj,
Indramani,
Dayaram,
Ram
Shiromani, Ramdhani and Ramsajivan,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324,
325, 504, 308 IPC. No charge sheet was
submitted against the named accused Shiv
Mangal
because
allegedly
he
was
murdered in cross case of this offence. No
charge sheet or any report was submitted
against the named accused Pulloo son of
Indramani and Indrajeet. After the case
was committed to Sessions on 07.07.2003
by the Magistrate. It was registered as
Sessions Trial No.775 of 2003 and later on
transferred to Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.13, Allahabad. Charges were
framed on 11.11.2003 against the accused
Ramraj,
Indramani,
Dayaram,
Ram
Shiromani, Ramdhani and Ram Sajivan,
under Sections 147, 148, 324/149, 308/149
IPC.

4. Trial of the aforesaid Session Trial
No.775 of 2003 started after recording of
the statement of PW-1. Applicant accused
Pulloo @ Shiv Pratap and Indrajeet were
also summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
to face this trial. Against the applicantaccused and Indrajeet charges under
Sections 147, 148, 324/149 and 308/149
IPC were framed on 04.05.2005. After full
trial all the charged accused of this trial
including the applicant were acquitted by
judgement and order dated 25.11.2005
passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.13, Allahabad.

5. A supplementary charge sheet
dated 20.10.2002 was filed by the I.O. in
aforesaid Case Crime No.99 of 2002
against the applicant Pulloo @ Shiv Pratap
and Indrajeet, under Sections 147, 148,
323, 504, 325, 308, 324 IPC. This
supplementary charge sheet was sent to the
Court of ACJM for further proceeding,
which was numbered as Case No.1048 of
2005. Proceedings were started by the
concerned Magistrate and warrant was
issued against the applicant for his
appearance. Against the second trial this
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
contended that in the same crime number
and for the charged sections, the applicant
has been acquitted vide judgement and
order of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.13, Allahabad dated 25.11.2005.
Copy of which has been filed as Annexure
No.1 to the affidavit and in the same crime
number and charged sections subsequently
charge sheet has been submitted by the
prosecution and now the warrant has been
issued against the applicant. Learned
counsel for the applicant further argued
that once the person has been tried and
acquitted, he cannot be tried for the same
offence again as per the provisions of
Section 300 Cr.P.C. and therefore the
proceedings

7. Learned AGA has filed his counter
affidavit on behalf of the State. In
paragraphs 4 and 5, it is categorically
stated that in this case FIR was lodged
against the applicant and co-accused
persons, which was registered as Case
Crime No.99 of 2002, under Section 147,
148, 149, 323, 324, 308 IPC, Police
Station- Handia, District- Allahabad, in
which charge sheet was submitted against
Ramraj,
Indramani,
Dayaram,
Ram
Shiromani, Ramdhani and Ram Sajivan. In
that case, cognizance was taken by
Magistrate
and
trial
started
after
committal. During the trial applicantaccused Pulloo @ Shiv Pratap and
Indrajeet were summoned under Section
2 All. Pulloo @ Shiv Pratap Vs. State of U.P.
1493
319 Cr.P.C. They were also tried along
with other charged accused persons and
ultimately all the accused including
applicant were acquitted by judgement and
order dated 25.11.2005. It is also stated in
the counter affidavit that a supplementary
charge sheet No.164A dated 20.10.2002
was submitted against accused applicant
Pulloo @ Shiv Pratap and Indrajeet.
Learned AGA further argued that the
matter should be brought by the applicant
before the court concerned for appropriate
relief and he has wrongly filed this
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

8. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the applicant,
learned AGA and perused the record.

9. Section 300 Cr.P.C. provided that a
person once convicted or acquitted cannot
be tried for the same offence. Section
300(1) of Cr.P.C. is as under:-

"Person once convicted or
acquitted not to be tried for same
offence-

(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."

10. Above provision is based on
maxim "nemo debet bis vexari", which
means that a person cannot be a convicted
on second time for an offence which was
involved in the offence with which he was
previously charged. In order to bar the trial
of the any offence already tried it must be
shown-

(i) that he has been tried by a
competent court for the same offfence or
one for which he might have been charged
or convicted at that trial on the same facts.

(ii) that he has been convicted or
acquitted at the trial and

(iii) that such conviction or
acquittal is in force.

11. In case at hand the applicantaccused was summoned under Section 319
Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.755 of 2003
(Case Crime No.99 of 2002) Police
Station- Handia, District- Allahabad and
was charged under Sections 147, 148,
324/149, 308/149 IPC and after complete
trial he has been acquitted by judgement
and order dated 25.11.2005 of Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Allahabad,
which was a competent court to try the
offence.

12. Learned AGA raised an objection
that in previous case applicant was
charged under Sections 147, 148, 324/149,
308/149 IPC and supplementary charge
sheet dated 20.10.2002 has been filed
under Section 147, 148, 323, 504, 325,
308,
324
IPC.
Learned AGA
also
submitted that some additional sections
have been added in the charge sheet.

13. It is relevant that in both the trials
incident is the same. They are based on
same prosecution story and the facts. In
previous trial i.e, S.T. No.775 of 2003
charge sheet against the six accused were
submitted under Sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 504, 325, 308, 324 IPC and applicant
was also summoned in that case but
1494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charges against them were framed in only
Section 147, 148, 324/149, 308/149 IPC.
Charge against the applicant was also
framed under the above sections of Indian
Penal Code. In Thakur Ram vs. State of
Bihar AIR 1966 SC 911, it has been
observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that
Section 300 Cr.P.C. bars the trial of a
person again not only for the same offence
but also for any other offence on the same
facts Inguva Mallikarjun Vs. State of
A.P. 1978 Cr.LJ 392 (DB), it was
observed that Section 300 Cr.P.C. also
applies to offence for which charges might
have been framed at previous trial.

14. It is not disputed by the
learned AGA that previous offence was
tried by a competent court in which
applicant was acquitted. This fact is
also stated in the counter affidavit of
the State. Third necessary point to
apply the bar of Section 300 Cr.P.C. is
such acquittal or conviction is in force.
Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the acquittal order dated
25.11.2005 is still in force. Learned
AGA has not disputed this fact.

15. In view of the above facts and
discussion, second trial of the applicant
for the same offence in which he has
been acquitted is barred by Section 300
Cr.P.C.

16.

Consequently,
entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1048
of 2005 arising from Case Crime No.99
of 2002, under Section 147, 148, 323,
504, 325, 308, 324 IPC against the
applicant is hereby quashed.

17. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
is, accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1494

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 15919 of 2013
connected with
 Application U/S 482 No. 11756 of 2013

Smt. Saroj Mishra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ms. Amrita Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Firoz Haider

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 195- There is
specific bar for a Court to take cognizance for
any offence punishable under Sections 172 to
188 Cr.P.C. (both inclusive) as per provision
quoted u/s 195 (a) (i) Cr.P.C.

B. Criminal law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 340- section 419, 420, 468, 471,
177, 181 IPC.- The false testimony of an
imposter before the Court would be covered in
the category of offence under Sections 177 and
181 I.P.C. and the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
would be operational .

C. Criminal law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 340-Only court
had the jurisdiction to lodge a complaint after
enquiry having been held under Section 340
Cr.P.C. which process does not appear to have
been resorted to in the present case- No
private complainant can be allowed to initiate
any Criminal proceeding in his individual
capacity - No court can take cognizance of the
offences punishable under Section 172 to 188
I.P.C. except on written complaint by the public
servant concerned-Even if the other sections
419, 420, 408 and 471 I.P.C. are found to be