JAVERCHAND TULSIDAS Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two Revision Applications Nos. 469 and 471 ot 1959. The facts giving rise to these two revision applications are: Orders admittedly amounting to orders of acquittal were passed in 16 cases under Section 30 (2) of the Police Act in respect of more than 200 accused who had been prosecuted for directing or promoting a procession without a licence between 9 and 9. 30 a. m. , on 3-3-58 at Akola. 8 or these persons (who are applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 471 of 1959) were prosecuted again along with others under Sections. 147, 332, 34, 149 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed rioiing and for having voluntarily caused hurt to a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, at 10. 30 a. m. , on 3-3-58 at Akola. 12 of the 200 persons (who are applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 469 of 1959) were subsequently prosecuted along with others for having committed ofrenccs under Sections 147, 332, 34, 149 of the Indian Penal Code at 1. 30 p. m. on 3-3-58 at Akola. The contention of these applicants that the two prosecutions are barred in view of the provisions of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, was rejected by the trying Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Judge, and the same contention is now urged before the High Court in these two revisions. The Criminal Procedure Code will hereinafter be referred to as the Code.

(2.) THE contentions urged on behalf of the applicants by their learned counsel Mr. M. N. phadke are:-

(3.) I reject both the revision applications for the following reasons: The applicants have been acquitted in a prosecution under Section 30 (2) of the Police Act under which a licence should be applied for when an order contemplated in that Sub-section is passed by the Magistrate of the District or the sub-division, requiring persons convening or collecting an assembly or directing or promoting a procession to apply for a licence. The applicants were acquitted of the charge of having directed or promoted a procession between 9 and 9. 30 a. m. , on 3-3-5s without applying for a licence as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 30. The question is whether their subsequent prosecution under the sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, Sections 147, 332, 34, 149 and 109 for having committed those offences at 10. 30 a. m. and 1. 30 p. m. , are barred under Section 403 of the Code.