- (1.) CRIMINAL M. P. No. 8907 of 1988 has been filed by the complainant to direct the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli to try sessions Case No. 9 of 1988 along with the private complaint filed by the petitioner in P. R. C. No. 27 of 1988 on the file of the Judicial Second Class magistrate, Srivaikuntam, after the same is committed to Sessions. Crl. M. P. No. 9568 of 1988 has been filed by the 5th accused in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1988 to implead him as 2nd respondent in Crl. M. P. No. 8907 of 1988.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner in Crl. M. P. No. 8907 of 1988, his brother R. S. Pandian was murdered on 19. 5. 1987 at 10. 30 P. M. , while he was returning from Eral to his house. With respect to that incident, the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the Head Constable, Eral Police Station but the latter did not record the complaint properly and did not include all the accused named by the petitioner in the complaint. Though the petitioner had made allegations against 18 persons, the respondent/inspector of Police, srivaikuntam did not investigate properly and filed the charge-sheet only against seven persons, viz. , accused 1 to 7 in P. R. CNo. 25 of 1987 on the file of the Judicialsecond Class Magistrate, Srivaikuntam. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, Tirunelveli Division and posted for trial before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1988. The case of the petitioner is that there is a conspiracy on 12. 5. 1987 and 13. 5. 1987 to murder his brother R. S. Pandian and pursuant to that, some of the accused murdered his brother. The police, without properly investigating the matter filed the charge-sheet only against 1 to 7. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a private complaint against 18 persons for offences under Secs. 147, 148 and 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Srivaikuntam and the same will be committed to the Court of Sessions, Tirunelveli Division. Thus, there are two complaints in respect of the same occurrence, viz. , murder of R. S. Pandian, one on police case in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1988 and another on a private complaint which is pending as P. R. C. No. 27 of 1988. The petitioner seeks that both cases should be tried by one and the same Judge or they should be clubbed together and tried as one case. For that purpose, the petitioner has filed crl. M. P. No. 8907 of 1988. The 5th accused in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1988 has filed Crl. M. P. No. 9568 of 1988 setting to implead himself as 2nd respondent incrl. M. P. No. 8907 of 1988 and also to vacate the interim stay granted in crl. M. P. No. 8908 of 1988 stating that he has been impleaded as an accused in the case at the instigation of the complainant that the private complaint is a vexatious one and that if the trial of Sessions Case No. 9 of 1988 is stayed pending the committal of the private complaint filed by the complainant, he will be put to indefinite annoyance and hardship facing trial in a false case. It is seen that the police case and the private complaint arise out of the same occurrence, viz. murder of one R. S. Pandian. The obly objection raised by the 5th accused, who filed Crl. M. P. No. 9568 of 1988 to implead himself as 2nd respondent in the other petition and also to vacate the interim stay is, that keeping the Sessions Case pending till the committal of the private complaint will keep the proceedings pending indefinitely and that he has to unnecessarily face trial in the Criminal Court. In. this case, it is seen, with reference to the same occurrence, in the police case seven persons are facing trial and in the private complaint 18 persons are facing trial. It is well settled that no person should be prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offence. Therefore, if the Sessions. Case is allowed to go on first on the police complaint, the accused who are convicted or acquitted for such offence and such conviction or acquittal remaining in force cannotbe tried again for the same set of facts for any other offence for which a different charge is made from the one one made in the earlier case. After the disposal of the Sessions Case, the private complaint cannot be proceeded with. Therefore, as held in the decision reported in Kewal Krishnan v. Suraj Bhan, A. I. R. 1980 s. C. 1780, if the private complaint is committed to some other Sessions Court, there is the risk of two Courts coming to conflict in findings. It is therefore, desirable that the same Court should try both the cases viz. case on police report and the case on private complaint. Learned counsel for the 5th accused has no objection if the committal proceedings in P. R. C. No. 27 of 1988 are expedited and both the cases are tried together. In the circumstances, I direct the Judicial Second class Magistrate, Srivaikuntam to expedite the committal proceedings in p. R. C. No. 27 of 1988 and commit the case to the Court of Session, Tirunelveli division, to be made over to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. Till the committal of the private complaint, the trial of Sessions Case No. 9 of 1988 is stayed. After the committal, the learned First Additional Sessions judge, Tirunelveli is directed to try both the cases together expeditiously after taking evidence in both the cases and deliver judgment in both the cases on the same day. Both the petitions ordered accordingly. ;