EMPEROR Vs. KALLASANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this ease the accused were tried on a charge under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted. They have been again charged under Section 61(o) of the Bombay District Police Act, IV of 1890. The accused were acquitted in the previous case as it was found that the public peace was not disturbed. The question that arises for decision is whether the acquittal in the previous case bars the present prosecution. The evidence in the present case will be exactly the same evidence that was led in the previous case. Section 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code says:- 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 Section 236, or for which he might have been convicted under Section 237.

(2.) Section 236 says:- If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may bo charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences.

(3.) We think the facts of the present case fall under Section 286 for it was doubtful from the beginning whether the act or the series of acts committed by the accused fell under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 61(o) of the Bombay District Police Act, If the public peace was disturbed, then the case fell under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code, otherwise, it would fall under Section 61(o) of the Bombay District Police Act. If there was a doubt from the beginning on the point as to whether public peace was disturbed alternate charges could have been framed in the previous case under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 61(o) of the Bombay District Police Act, and the accused could have been convicted under Section 61(o) of the Bombay District Police Act in the previous case under Section 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We think, therefore, that the acquittal in the previous case operates as a bar to the present prosecution.