J.K. Tandon, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision on behalf of Chandra Mohan, who is being prosecuted in special trial No. 4 of 1955 in the court of the Special Judge at Kanpur on charges Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Ss. 409, 465, 468, 420 and 120B of the IPC.
(2.) THE applicant was an ahalmad in the court of City Magistrate at Kanpur. Prior to his prosecution in special trial No. 4 of 1955 he was prosecuted in special trial No. 6 of 1953 Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 465 and 471, IPC read with S. 120B, IPC, for the misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 22,558 which it was alleged had been collected by him in his official capacity jointly with the co -accused in that case. This trial commenced on the basis of a charge -sheet which was presented on 10 -10 -1953. Permission of the District Magistrate in respect of the charge -sheet then submitted was obtained on the same date. A sum of Rs. 22,558 said to have been misappropriated in that case covered the period commencing from 5 -11 -1951 to 5 -11 -1952. Understand that the applicant was convicted in that case for offences Under Section s. 4b5 and 471, IPC, and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but was acquitted of other charges. So far as the present special trial No. 4 of 1955 is concerned the amount said to have been misappropriated by the applicant was a sum of Rs. 7,147 during the period 1949 to 1950. The charges against him under the several sections of the IPC and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act related to the items between the period 1949 to ly50. These items were not the subject matter of the charge in special trial No, 6 of 1953. Here it may further be mentioned that so far as trial No. 4 of 1955 is concerned the sanction of the District Magistrate for the prosecution was obtained on 14 -12 -1953 more than four months after the sanction had been granted in connection with special trial No. 6 of 1955.
(3.) THE applicant's grievance is that he having already been prosecuted and convicted in special trial No. 6 of 1953 his trial over again in respect of the sums said to have been misappropriated during the period 1949 to 1950, which was a prior period, is contrary to the principle embodied in Cl (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution and also S. 403 of the CrPC. He has also urged that the trial is bad on the principle of autrefois convict and that in any case it is an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed Under Section 561 A, CrPC. In support his Learned Counsel has relied on a decision of Andhra High Court in Kamchandra v. The State : AIR 1956 Ap 102. Prior to coming up in revision before this Court the applicant had applied to the trial court which nevertheless rejected his application hence this revision.;