ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated January 20,1992, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road, by which the learned Magistrate allowed the application of the accused and quashed the proceedings and discharged the accused.
(2.) ON December 6,1989, one Chhoga Lal was struck down by the motor-cycle, which was driven by the accused Ranveer Singh. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Abu Road, and a case under Sections 279 and 337 I. P. C. was registered against the accused. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the accused Ranveer Singh in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Abu Road, on December 17, 1989. Charges under sections 279 and 337 I. P. C. were framed against the accused and the accused pleaded guilty and, therefore, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 I. P. C. , but gave him the benefit of probation. The injured was referred for further medical treatment to the General Hospital, Ahmedabad where the injury sustained by him was found a grievious one and X-ray was taken and on the basis of the X-ray report, which was not produced alongwith the earlier challan, the matter was again investigated and additional challan against accused Ranveer Singh was filed in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road, for the offences under Sections 338 I. P. C. and Sections 132 and 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the police. The accused preferred an application under Section 300 (4) Cr. P. C. alleging therein that on the same allegations he was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and was convicted in Criminal Case No. 1973 of 1989, and he cannot be treid again for the same offences. This application was opposed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Magistrate, by its order dafed January 20,1992, allowed the application under Section 300 Cr. P. C, filed by the petitioner (ac-cused) and discharged the accused. Section 300 Cr. P. C. provides that where a person has been acquitted of or convicted for the offence and a separate charge should have been made but was not made against him in the former trial, he cannot be prosecuted again on the other charges. This section is based on the well-known maxim of law : MEMO DEBET BIS VEXAPI PRO EADEN CAUSE, i. e. , no person should to twice vexed in the same offence. When a person has already been tried there is an adjudication on the point : whether it is in the form of acquittal or trial, that judgment becomes conclusive so far as the offences whose ingredients are the same, are concerned. Section 300 Cr. P. C. affords a protection to the accused against the trial for the same offence or for an offence with which he might have been charged under Section 221 (2) Cr. P. C. It, also, affords a protection against a new trial in respect of a minor offence under Section 202 Cr. P. C. The principle of Autre Fois Convict has, also, been adopted in our Constitution in Article 20 (2), wherein it has been provided that no person can be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once. For the second prosecution, an exception in the form of Sub-Clause (iii) to Section 300 Cr. P. C. has been engrafted which provides that a person convicted of any offence constituted by any Act, causing consequence, which together with such act, constitutes a different offence from that, of which he was convicted, may be, afterwards,tried for such last mentioned offence, if the consequence had not happened or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted. If the case of the accused falls within Sub-clause (iii) to Section 300 Cr. P. C. then he can again be tried, but the case of the accused does not fall within the purview of this exception which is covered by Sub-clause (iii) to Section 300 Cr. P. C. and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in allowing the application under Section 300. Cr. P. C, filed by the accused and rightly discharged him. No case for interference is made-out and the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and |he same is hereby dismissed. . .;