KOLLA VEERA RAGHAV RAO v. GORANTALA VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANR.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date: 2011-02-01
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kolla Veera Raghav Rao

Respondents

Gorantala Venkateswara Rao
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Bina Madhavan
• Vinita Sasidharan (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.)

Counsels for Respondents

• G Ramesh Allanki (for D. Mahesh Babu)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision addresses the scope of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) and the wider protection under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. The appellant, Kolla Veera Raghav Rao, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He challenged the subsequent prosecution under Indian Penal Code Section 420 (cheating) on the same facts. The High Court had dismissed his appeal. The Court explains that Article 20(2) prohibits being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once, but Sec. 300(1) Cr.P.C. goes wider: a person who has once been tried by a Court for an offence and convicted or acquitted shall not be tried again for the same offence, nor for any other offence based on the same facts or for which a different charge could have been framed under Cr.P.C. The important point is that the present case involves different offences on the same facts, so Sec. 300(1) applies, and the subsequent IPC Section 420 prosecution is barred. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the High Court's judgment is set aside. The decision clarifies the distinction between the constitutional guarantee and the statutory provision, emphasizing that Cr.P.C. 300(1) can prevent multiplicity of trials when the facts are identical. The Court’s interpretation enhances finality in criminal proceedings and strengthens the preventive arm against harassment due to repeated prosecutions on the same transaction.

Provisions of Law Cited

Cr.P.C. 300(1)Article 20(2) of the ConstitutionNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881, s. 138Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 420Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Double jeopardy doctrine: no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once
Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution, covering same facts even for different offences

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that having already been convicted under Section 138 NI Act, he cannot be tried or punished again for the same facts under Section 420 IPC or any other provision. Article 20(2) and Cr.P.C. 300(1) protect against multiplicity of trials; Section 300(1) is broader than Article 20(2), and thus the bar is applicable. Relying on the wording and the doctrine of finality in criminal proceedings, the appellant urged that allowing a fresh prosecution would undermine the sanctity of an earlier conviction and subject the accused to multiplicity of trials for the same transaction.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2011] 2 S.C.R. 364 A ## KOLLA VEERA RAGHAV RAO ## _v._ ## GORANTALA VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1160 OF 2006) B ## FEBRUARY 1, 2011 ## [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] - _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.300(1) Scope of ·-Held: s.300(1) is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution_ C - _While, Article 20(2) only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once', s.300 (1) states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for_ a _different offence but on the_ - _same facts In the instant case, accused was already_ o _convicted uls. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881_ - _He_ · _cannot be again tried or punished on the same facts under_ - _s.420 or any other provision of /PC or any other statute_ - - _Constitution of India, 1950 Article 20(2) Negotiable_ - - - _Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138 Penal Code, 1860 s.420._ E CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of2006. From the Judgment·& Order dated 7.10.2005 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in F Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 1999 and Criminal Revision Case No. 312 of 1999. Bina Madhavan, Vinita Sasidharan (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.) for the Appellant. G Ramesh Allanki (for D. Mahesh Babu) for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered 364 H # KOLLA VEERA RAGHAV RAO _v._ GORANTALA VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANR. ' 365 # ORDER A Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 07th October, 2005 passed by the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 1999 and B Criminal Revision Case No. 312 of 1999. The facts have been set O\.lt in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. C Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was already convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and hence he could not be again t~ied or punished on the same facts·under Section 420 · 0 or any other provision of IPC or any other statute. We find force in this submission. It may be noticed that there is a difference between the language used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C .. Article 20(2) states: · · E ; "no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same . . offence more than once." On the other hand, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C, States: "300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for· same office- F (1) 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 G 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 sub- section (1) H 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R. A of section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof." Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. While, Article 20(2) of the 8[Constitution ][only ][states ][that ]['no ][one ][can ][be ][prosecuted ][and ] punished for the same offence more than once', Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts. C In the present case, although the offences are different but the facts are the same. Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies. Consequently, the prosecution under Section 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. D The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. D.G. Appeal allowed.