Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SURENDRA GUPTA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BHAGWANDEVI
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/04/1994
BENCH:
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
BENCH:
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 509 1994 SCC (4) 657
1994 SCALE (2)625
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. The short question of law that arises for consideration
in this appeal is if the High Court was right in its finding
that the appellants were liable to be proceeded with and
were not liable to be discharged on the second complaint
filed under Section 494 IPC, for which they had been
convicted and sentenced earlier.
2. Appellant 1 is said to have married appellant 2. The
wife of appellant 2 one Promila filed a complaint under
Section 494 IPC, in which the appellants were convicted and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and
fine of Rs 2000 each and in default of the payment of fine I
further period of six months’ imprisonment. Subsequently,
Respondent 1, who claims to be husband of appellant 1, filed
the present complaint against appellants 1 and 2 and other
relations, who too were parties in the first complaint. The
appellants claimed that since they had been convicted for
the offence, they were liable to be discharged. The trial
court dismissed the application against which they filed
revision. The High Court maintained tile order and held
that the benefit of Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure
Code was not available as the facts were not the same.
3. Sub-section (1) of Section 300 CrPC bars a second trial
for the same offence. The High Court itself found that the
offence was the same yet it dismissed the application of the
appellants for discharging them as facts were not same.
Sub-section (1) of Section 300 CrPC reads as under:
657
"300. (1) A person who has once been tried by
a Court of competent jurisdiction for an
offence and convicted or acquitted of such
offence a 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
a different charge from the one made against
him might have been made under sub-section (1)
of Section 221, or for which he might have
been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof."
It shall be seen that it bars a fresh trial if a person had
been tried and convicted or acquitted by a court of
competent Jurisdiction for the same offence. Offence is
defined by clause (n) of Section 2 of the CrPC to mean ,an
act or omission made punishable by the Act’. The offence
for which the appellants were tried earlier was the offence
of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. The second trial,
therefore, may be at the instance of the husband of
appellant 1 is clearly barred by Section 300 CrPC, as it is
for the same offence. The High Court, in our opinion,
misdirected itself in recording the finding that facts being
different, except the alleged marriage the second complaint
was liable to be proceeded with. We do not find any
distinction on facts except that the first complaint was
filed by the first wife of the husband and second complaint
has been filed by the husband of the wife, appellant 1 who
is said to have remarried appellant 2. The offence of bigamy
is committed when a husband or wife in the lifetime of his
spouse marries. When a person is tried and convicted for
such an offence on the complaint of a person, authorised by
law to do so, he or she cannot be prosecuted and tried a
second time for the same offence on another complaint filed
by another person. The bar under Section 300 is for trial
and conviction of the same offence. Since offence remains
the same the appellants cannot be tried and convicted for it
once again.
4. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.
The order passed by the High Court and the Magistrate are
set aside. The appellants shall stand discharged.
658