- (1.) J. P. Semwal, J. This is an applicaticn under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 308 of 1979, under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the judicial Magistrate (City) Agra.
(2.) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the accused was earlier also prosecuted under Section 420, I. P. C. , and the Criminal Case No. 2982 of 1979, Stale v. Sushil Chandra Verma, Police Station, Kotwati, Jaitnpur, was decided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, on 26-9- 1980, and the accused-applicant was acquitted. I have perused this judgment of acquittal, which is Annexure No. 5, and also the charge-sheet, Annexure No. 6 which is the subject-matter oi' the present petition. This charge-sheet is against the present applicant for having cheated Sri Gur Saran Das r/o 3/150, I'rem Nagar, Dayal Bagh, Agra, Director Deepa Gas Service, Agra, and Union Bank of India, Agra. The charge-sheet of the earlier case IK Annexure No. 4, and in that case, allegations are against Amai Nath Ojha. The learned Ciriet Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, acquitted the present applicant in the other case. The discussion in the body of the judgment of that case, which is Annexure No. 5, goes to show that A mar Nath Ojha, also admitted that he had taken security money from the con sumer 'ind he did not deposited the amount with Sri Sushil Chandra Verma and Indian Fuel Gas, Jaunpur. He also did not say that any Gas Cylinder was supplied to him i'or giving them to consumers. In view of the facts and evidence of the case, learned Magistrate found that the main question was whether the accused has any dishonest intention at the time of making the advertisement or at the time of receiving the money from the dealer. It was found by the learned Magistrate that tho money deposited by Sri Amar Nalh Ojha was in respect of the stationary and cecurity and it was not considera tion of any property. A reference has aiso been made to the terms of the agreement on cancellation of the dealership. According to the agreement, he had to deposit the consumer's money with the Indian Fuel Gas, and as he did not deposit the said money, his dealership was cancelled. On these facts, it appeared to the Magistrate to be a breach of contract and adjustment of' the account rather a case of' cheating. The learned Magistrate, therefore, found the accused- applicant not guilty in that case and hs accordingly acquit ted him. The present charge-sheet, Annexure No. 6 has been filed in respect of the cheating of other persons. At this stage, it cannot be said that the chcuge-sheet against the accused is for the liame offence for which he was acquitted earlier. Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is found on the princi ples of double jeopardy. This section embodies the principles which techni cally known as aure fois convict and fain acquit, and it is for the accused person to establish in subsequent proceedings that he had been tried previ ously by a court of competent jurisdiction, that such court was competent to try the offence, that he was either convicted or acquitted of that offence at the earliei tiial that such conviction or acquittal still remain in force when subse-quent proceedings has been taken against him that in tho subsequent pioceed-ings he has been tried again that for the same offence or on the same facts for any other offence for which different charge might have been undei Section 221 (1),cr. P. C.
(3.) NO material has been place except the aforementioned documents, which are on the record and does not prima fade go to in that the present charge-sheet has been filed on the same facts, as I have falready said that the present charge-sheet has been filed by other persons and not by Sri Amar Nath Ojha. Since Section 310, Cr. P. C. bars the trial of the same offence, or on the same facts, hence it would be for the trial court to examine this point before commencing the trial after hearing the accused-applicant and the State counsel. It is not proper for this court in absence of any material on the record co express any opinion which may prejudice the interest of the parties. With these aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , is dismissed, stay order dated 14-12-1980 is vacated. Application dismissed. .;