State of Punjab vs Harnek Singh

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Respondentaccused Harnek Singh was found practising as medical practitioner in the Ayurvedic and Unani system of medicines in village Golewala of Faridkot district on January 19, 1977, under the pseudo name of Bhan Singh on the basis of registration certificate No. 26666 issued by the Registrar, Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines to Bhan Singh aforesaid. The Divisional Drugs Inspector Kuldip Singh Bedi filed criminal complaint No. 2811/1023 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, against respondent accused under sections 27(a)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in respect of the accusation aforesaid. Vide judgment dated 9th November 1981 learned trial court convicted the accused of the commission of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs. 500/ as fine. In default of payment of fine the convict accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months.

On the same facts the Divisional Drugs Inspector Kuldip Singh also got First Information Report No. 266 registered against Harnek Singh accused in Police Station, Baghapurana at 10.45 A.M. on September 17, 1977. On the plea of autrefois acquit, learned trial court acquitted him vide impugned judgment of June 10, 1982. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 137DBA of 1983 in this Court.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, A.A.G. Punjab, for the appellant State, nemo for the respondent inspite of due service and have carefully perused the relevant record.

Learned trial court observed in para 3 of its impugned judgment, "As pointed out above, Ex. PC is a copy of the complaint filed by Shri K.S. Bedi, Divisional Drugs Inspector, Faridkot, in the court of Shri K.K. Kataria, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, in which he alleged that on 19177 at about 5 P.M. he along with Dr. J.R. Suri had inspected to shop of the accused in village Samalsar and found him violating section 18C of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under section 27(a)(ii) of the Act; that complaint case was ultimately decided by Shri P.K. Garg, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide copy of judgment dated 911198 Ex. DA. It is not disputed that the present challan case and the aforesaid complaint case arose out of the same facts. It was stated by the learned defence counsel during the course of arguments that the order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri Garg is still in force. Learned APP has not said anything to dispute this Position." Relevant subsection (1) of Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads :

"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 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 a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under subsection (1) of section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under subsection (2) thereof."

Retrial of respondent accused Harnek Singh over again is also barred in terms of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India which reads :

"20 (2). No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."

In this view of the matter State appeal filed against the acquittal of Harnek Singh respondent accused fails and is consequently dismissed.