The High Court · 2025

Sri M.Ramcl:i n I r State . i ':LrIed counsel appcaring for the appellant. the lea.ne.t Additional pubtic prosecuror app.r.rnnt f( r.tl c respondent JUDGMEI$ ,,]. (ee Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattachiuya) 1 . The ,\ r I rca arises out of a judgment datecL '.2t .o1 .2025 Sa ngareddy passed b1. tl r I)r ncipal District ard Sessions Judge in S.C.No 1! I of 2Ol2 sentencing the appel ant to life imprisonnrr.n t irr an offence punishable under section 3( 12 og ,n. Indian Penal . r,d,:, 1860 (1pC) and rigorous imprisor in,:nt ibr 6 months fot t' ( )ffence under sectio n 37g of thr, Ip l. The appellant \\,i, < tre Accused No.2 before the Trial Cor-rrt

2. The A o: r rrl rvas admitted on O6.03 .2025. The .iri,rl Court Records !ft)r.(' [ ; ]1e,1 for and are before us.

3. Lealtcc , r,unsel appearing for the appeltant/A ,, p rays for setting asirlr, r' the impugned judgment on a preJimitre.ry ground that the imp.-u1 -ed judgment warrants interference.

4. We havt I rea rd learned counsel appearing for tLre a:rpellant as well as t.li lt:arned Additional public prosecu:or on the 2 MB,J & BRMR'J Crl.A,No.3OO of 2O25 preliminary issue of whether the impugned judgment waffants interference

5. It is necessary to set out the factual background of the matter to appreciate the preliminary issue' Backqround

6. The appellantlA.2 along with A 1 were earlier tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in Sessions Case No.182 of 2012, for offences under sections 302 and 379 of the I.P.C By a judgment dated 16 07 '2012' tbe appellant/A.2 was acquitted of both the charges under sections 302 and 379 of the I.P.C but was convicted for the offence under section 411 I.P.C. for dishonestly receiving stolen property' The appellant was accordingly sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a hne of Rs'S'0OO/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of hne. The judgment dated' 16'O7 '2O12 forms part of the Records. 7 The appellant f A.2 preferted Criminal Appeal No 737 of 2Ol2 aggrieved by the judgment d'ated' 16'07 '2012 ' The Criminal Appeal was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and by a 3 ",,.{i",i,,#:ff;{ judgmen: :ht.,1 28.06.2024 t]ne matter was remand,rc. t,r the Trial Court fol rl, : . irlir rg the matter afresh with regard t, r t h,: offences under srctirs 302 and 379 of the I.P.C. Thc :rppe llant was directed l(, L, rrr on notice.

8. On ,.e _-r rnrl, the Trial Court, by the impugr e:t judgment dated 28 t) L t:2.; convicted the appellant /A.2 anc t\. for the offences rrrrc,t st:ctions 302 and 329 of the I.p C. ;:Lse,d on the same evirlr:r< r. vr[i6[ was led in 2012. The jud4rne tt dated 28.O1.2025 f,rr rrs the subject matter of the presenr_ A;pez l. A.2 is the appelllt t ::fo -e us. Decision

9. () ; 3, or in The iss -t before us is whether the decision oi tlie learned single Jucigr: , ttrilcts section 300 (1) of The crrde of. ,)riminal Procedure, - the alternative, section 33/ l) of The tl< Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) i.e. . th,r barr on l',vo times for the same offence aft(l: t1l€ p,:rson is cr lcquitted of such offence. Bharatiya I'lr; g z trying a pe :-.,r - either conr,. c te r

10. SectiorL i t,(l ) of the Cr.p.C, section 337(1) of thr. t\ SS and Article 20(2; r:f rlLc Oonstitution of India are set out belou 4 MB,J &BRMR'J Crl.A.No.3OO of 2025 Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C: "300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.-(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 aly other offence for which 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. Section 337 (1) of the BNSS "337. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. (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 acquittat 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) of section 244, or fot which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof." Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India "(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more thal once." 5 ) of i: ,: MB,J & BRMR,J Crt.A.No.30O of 2O2S 1 1 The s l rlt lry embargo on a second triar of a D(rrs on for the same oflerLt t u hile the first conviction or acquittal r,lmalns in force, is irl:,r , ,;15, of the fundamental rights protectec un ier Article - gr4stitution of India. which prohibirs rLpe :son from 20(2 being prosc,: , tec and punished for the same offenct rnore than once. Th,l C <, rst:tutional guarantee in Article 2O(2) f inrls echoes across tlt,.r ,'orld. The Fifth Amendment ol th : American Constitutio;r ,: tunciates the principle that no person slrall be twice put in jeopa:: r' of life or limb. The principle i,s also pru t of the Rule of Englirh Law that a person must not be pur in jeopardy twice for tht, .-: tnr offence. The Jud gln(3 rt clated 28.06 .2024

12. The .1 ir : ; lrncnt dated 2g .06.2024 passed by t he iearned Single Jud r1t in criminar Appeal No.737 of 20 2 varrants interferenc e < L spi te the fact that the said judgment is not the subject rr a.r t.. r of the present Appeal. The judgn er t dated 28.06.202,1 rz ir es questions which are worthy of adjucir:,ation.

13. The {:p'aL before the learned Single Judge rel rrcd only to the convictior ,,r' the appellant/A.2 for the offence u.c er section 4ll of the I I, r ) 'lhe earlier judgment of the Trral ()our t dated 16.07.2012 {v-:tch was challenged by the appellzrrt relcre the 6 ,. :. MB'J & BRMR,J Crl,A.No.SOO of 2025 learned Single Judge) records that the appellant/A'2 was acquitted of the offences under sections 3O2 and 379 of the I'P'C' but was convicted for the offence under section 41 1 of the I'P C and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years' The learned Single Judge framed an issue as to whether the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for dishonestly receiving stolen property was liable to be set aside The learned Single Judge proceeded to engage in an elaborate discussion of the facts before the Trial Court and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the matter afresh with regard to the appellant's acquittal of the offences under sections 302 and 379 of t]ne I P'C' The Trial Court washoweveradvisedtoremainuninfluencedbytheCourt,s observations notwithstanding the detailed discussion in the judgment given by the learned Single Judge on the issue of acquittal of the offences under sections 302 and 379 of the I'P'C' t4 The last paragraph of the judgment dated 28'06 2024 is set out below: "39. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is disposed of directing the learned trial Court to reconsider the matter afresh with regard to offences under Sections 302 alrd 37g of IPC' independently' by duly putting both accused on notice, in accordance with 1aw' within three monthsfrom,thedateofreceiptofcopyofthisJudgment.ltismade clear that the learned tria-l Court shall not be influenced in any manner by the observations made in this Judgment " 7 MB,-I IV BRMR,J Crl.A.No.3Ot, of 2O25

15. It ts, o )rucial importance that the learned Sing e Judge remanded th: ,,a tter to the Trial Court without settrnq iLside the judgment d.,tlrtL 1D.O7 .2012. Therefore, the appellanr,_. conviction and sentencr its imposed in the judgment dated lb. )7.2012, remained ir: ir rre as of 2g.O6.2024 (the date of the jrrdllment of the learnerl l!;rele Judge) and continued to remain in frrrce till the impugned .1r-Lr[:nrent dated 2g.01.2025, which forms the subject matter of rh,: 'resent Appeal. The fact that the judgrte rt d.rted 1.6.O7.2ol.tl. .r IirclL was the subject matter of Crirrrnal Appeal No.737 of 2t) l'. . riras not set aside a1d the matter r*,as simply remanded .o I | : Tr-ial Court for reconsideration is gerrnan,: for the purposes ofst,: iorL 3OO(1) of the Cr.p.C and sectron 33i,( )of the BNSS. The Statutr;r-v _.np, lcations of the Judement d atecl.28 06.2024

16. Aitho -rr11 . the relevant provisions have alr :iLclr been extracted abo.' r tile statutory import thereof is re;tera ted for conveniencr . t"rr th sections 3OO(1) of the Cr.p.C ar-lcl 3 3.,(11 of the BNSS prohiri': : per son from being tried twice for a, offerrct where the person h.as r:ither been convicted or conviction/z cr1 .r i .tal remains in force (Underlined for e.n pl asisl .,v:ril,: such uittecl 8 MB,J &BRT/F,J Crl.A.No.3OO of 2O25

17. The said provisions apply to the facts of the present case with full force. First, the appeliant was acquitted of the offences of sections 302 and 379 of the IPC' Therefore' remanding the matter to the Triat Court for a re-trial of the offences for which the appellant was acquitted, is directly hit by section 300[1) Cr'P C and 337(i) of the BNSS. Second, in the absence of the judgment of conviction or acquittal being set aside, the acquittal remained in force as on the date of the impugned judgment dated 28'Ol'2025' whichformsthesubjectmatterofthepresentAppeal.Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 28 01 2O25 falls foul of section 300(1) of the Cr.P'C/section 337(1) of the BNSS and is also contrar5r to Article 20(21 of the Constitution' which preserves the fundamentalrightofapersonfrombeingprosecutedand punished for the same offence more than once'

18. We accordingly hnd that the appellant has made out a strong case for interference with the imPugned judgment, bY which the appellant was convicted of the offences sections 302 artd 379 of the IPC' The appellant had earlier been acquitted of both these offences by the Trial Court on 16'07 '2012'

19. We are not inclined to accept the argument that the judgment of the learned Single Judge rvas passed in exercise of the TY 9 ",r.{,?"i,"^r,,#:f #;t" power o1 '':' ;iorr under section 397 read, with sectro_r ,lO1 of the Cr.P.C. S,:,: c,n 397 of the Cr.p.C authorises the I{ gl, Court to call for :r-r :xz.mine the record of aly proceedirg b eforr: any inferior C r' ;: ; 1.11 Court situated within the jurisdictir.rr o,. the High court for tl (' prrrpose of satisfying itserf as to thr :o -rectness, legality or c-: p.ety of any finding, sentence or orcler, cr to the regularity of r lrr: rrroceedings of the inferior Coun. Ser:ti, rn 4O 1 of the Cr.P.(l : -.. stallises the High Court,s powers of rt.r,isi rn where the High (lor I I tr ty exercise the discretion conferred trr a Court of Appeal bv ser.:cnri 3g6, 3g9, 390 and 391 of the C)r.p.C.

20. Seclic,;t lg(r of the Cr.p.C delineates the pou er.; of the Appellate ( c , : t rnd clause (b)(i) thereof authorizt.s t ee High Court, in iu r I r I)e from a conviction, to order the a( rc rts ed to be re-tried bf ,: r'tu,.t of competent jurisdiction subordir at.: to the Appellate Co t:" Sr:ction 3g9 of the Cr.p.C provides for sus pension of sentenc<. 1xr:Cing the Appeal. Section 390 of tbe Cr.p C cleals u,ith the :L:r.r::r r)f the accused in an appeai from ar.qul tal and section 39 I . rr.htrises the Appellate Court to tzrke further evidence. I c,n I c f the aforesaid provisions were reier.a:rt lo the proceedings b| i,;6 1[s learned Single Judge in Crimrnal Appeal No.737 of 20)2 f tr I emanding the matter to the Triai Court. 10 MB,J & BR;MR,J Crl'A.No.3OO of 2O2S ,

21. It is also significant that the re trial directed by the learned Single Judge was not related to the conviction of the appellant undersection4llofthelPCbutwasagainsttheacquittalofthe accused under sections 302 and 379 of the IPC Moreover' section 40112\ of the Cr.P.C mandates that no order under section 401 shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless the accused was given an opportunity of being heard, either personally or through a pleader, in his/her defence- Section 401(3) contains an embargo on the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

22. Even though the learned Single Judge directed the Trial Court to reconsider the matter with regard to the offences under Sections302and3TgofthelPC,thejudgmentisrepletewith observations and findings against the appellant for having wrongly been acquitted of the charges under sections 302 and 379 of the IPC.Thesefindingsandobservationsimpingeontheprotection granted under section 4O1 (3) of the Cr'P'C to a person who has already been acquitted by the Trial Court' safeguarding him/her from being convicted of the same offence by the High Court' ,rri.=7 11 MB.J & BRMR,J Crl. A. No. 3 t'.to of 2 O2 S Power of-1[,: , \p] >ellate Court to direct Re-trial T1'r,: :-. i r:r of the Appellate Court to direct ir re trial criminal : r r , r is ordinariiy exercised only ir: e;.:ceptional circumstiur.tl unless the Appeilate Court is satisfi:d that the Court rvl.jr:l :rrr <lucted the trial lacked jurisdictiorr or that the tnal was , i : 1erI by serious illegalities or irregul rr itii)s or on account ()l tr sc()nception of the nature of the procee,iings: In effect, tha, I lL,-r: had not been aly real trial irt € 11. The justilicatkrr ') rx,reptional circumstances arises irom t -re fact that an acquir,te,,l l,t-s,tn is exposed to a second trial rvhice ,af,brds the prosecuto ' :l L - ttre r opportunit5r to recti$r the infirmitres; , lisclosed in the firs1 trt.l U kha Kolhe Vs. State of Maharashtraj ,

24. In otlre: r,,,ords, a d.e nouo trial should be orcre-e(. by the Appcliate 3 ,r L - only in rare cases, when in the, oprrlo:r of the Appellate li :,r r - t is the only indispensible recour s:r ,o avert i,Iohd. Hussain Vs. State (Gout. o_f N(1 o,.Delhi)2. a conclusion that an investigation rr t,.ial was be based <x'r r tl rorough failure of jr-r,.;t r ,, Needless ro .i t\, shoddy or i ( i:rc precision must examinatio I )'tt-e evidence. lAIR 1963 SC iiI 2 (2ot2l 9 sc(r rc: t2 MB,J & BRMR,J C"I.A.No.3OO of 2025 The Underlyin s Constitutionai and Statuto rv Mandate

25. The maxim 'nemo debet bis uexai pro eadem causd' (no person should be vexed twice for the same offence) embodies the Rule of common law that no one should be put to peril twice for the same offence. The position of 1aw, as enunciated by the Courts, is as under: (i) There must be a previous proceeding before a Court of law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction in which the person must have been prosecuted; (ii) The conviction/acquittal in the previous proceeding must be in force at the time of the second proceeding in relation to the same offence ald the same set of facts for which the person was prosecuted and punished in the first proceeding; (iii) The subsequent proceeding must be a fresh proceeding where the person is sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence and on the same set of facts for the second time: T.P. Gop alakishnan V. State of Kerala3.

26. The Supreme Court considered the implications of a de nouo trial in P. Manikandan Vs. Central Bureau of Inuestigation4 where the High Court had acquitted the appellant and directed the CBI to conduct a de nouo investigation on the same facts for the same 3 (2022]. t4 SCC 323 4 2024 SCC OnLIne SC 3808 .,:it -7 ::.€.8.: 13 ",,.{i,;7r1:;#;'" offence a l c o troceed against the appellant in a<.c _.,rt Lance with law. The Sr, rreme Court held that the right enshrtrrec in Article 2O(2) of ,t : r c,;titution was violated a,d set aside tl r: , iecision of the High ('c i i .

27. We rr I lind certain other factors to be cf si gnificance tmpactin t tl r 1e6,a1ity of the judgment dated 2g .06.2o2,+ The Un-:.n s ,- : .e I Ques tions

28. Firr;t I er( \\ras no challenge by the State to :L ,: udgmsnl passed bv tt r '-r:al Court on 16.O2.2O72 acquitting tlLe lppellant of the offi:r Lc:. lrnder sections 302 and 329 of the Ip,l. Second, the Appeal I rf rre the learned Single Judge (Crl.A.No 732 of 2012) was confiru'rl ',, tl c appellant's conviction under secti,.rrL 411 of the IPC. Thit.rl , I r,:r,: is no reference to the fate of th e c, >nviction under sec _rr: r t I of the IpC in the order passerl by t he learned Single Juc;1r' t' ^t '- g.06.2024. In fact, the concludingl ca -t of the judgment rlrrt : 2it.O6.2O24 simply directs the Trial Co;Lr to hear the matter i rf: r, ;1 1yi1[ regard to the acquittal of the alp.:llant in relation to llLe :fle:Lces under sections 3O2 and 329 of rhe lpC.

29. The irlrs:l,re of any reference to the appellant,s colviction under sectio .r .i 1 I of the IpC creates ambiguity and le:rvt s room t4 MB,J & BRMR'J CILANo'SOO of 2O25 for inference as to the effect of the conviction' We may add that the order passed by the learned Single Judge amounts to a partial remand leaving the aforesaid questions unanswered' ' reference to the

30. The absence of any conclusion or conclusion under section 41 1 of the I'P'C hence amounts to the obliteration of that conclusion' It is well settled that the evidence and record of the previous trial is completely wiped out if a matter is directed for re-trial: Nasib Singh u State of Puniabs ' 3 1 . We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned Single Judge was entitled to question the acquittal of the appellant by exercising the revisiona-l powers under sections 397 and 401 of the Cr'P C' The order of remand does not reflect the accused being put on notice before the acquittal was called to question and the remand for a retrial was ordered for a greater offence. The appellant /A.2 beilrg put on notice for the re-trial in the Trial Court is not the same as being put on notice of the abrupt change of direction of the appeal before the learned Single Judge'

32. It is clear from section 4}ir(2\ of the Cr'P'C that no order underthisSectionshallbemadetotheprejudiceoftheaccusedor ss l2o22l 2 scc 89 I T-Y --- 15 MB J & BRMR,J Crl. A. No. 3 t'r? o:f 2 02 s other pel sor r tnless he/she has had an opportunity o1 br.ing heard either pe rs .; - : lly or by pleader in his/her own defen< e

33. Th,: ,:,,-t:r.tion of the Additional public prose,:r ro,. that the appellant (rr, l,l have challenged the judgment oi th,) learned Single Jr c111r, st rlso of little consequence since thert. c ln be no estoppel ir! I I I lt tatv. The issue of the law being overr-i,1d,,)n can be taken up ir t i n) point of time particularly when , h e rrggrieved party urgc:r r i -l,tt on of the constitutional maldate. 34 The lr r s in The State of A.p. u. Thad.i lrcu.:t.!1ana 6 substantirrlt-,, ; i:r; vith the facts of the present case. . .l r: :juprsmg Court opirLr.rl rlr,at the learned Single Judge of the Anclhra pradesh High Cou 1 L !,:cl rvithout jurisdiction in altering -he trder of acquittal lti s t, c n favour of the respondent in re,;6,r:c t of the offences nn :1, st ctions 302 and 392 when the lee,r t er I Single Judge was ,,1r it inrl with the appeal preferred by the r r:s:tonclent against her ,:l- .jcrion under section 411. Conclusi or

35. An o:-rl,:. :as,sed in violation of a constitutiona qu,uantee and fundarn.: r ' r L, -ight along with the raw of th e ra.n d on the 6 AIR 1962 Su:rr.r I . \:.a .rt 24t) 16 trlIB,J 6b BRMR,J Crl.A.No.3OO of 2O25 prohibition of a person being tried twice for the same offence while the conviction or acquittal remains in force, would upend all that follows after passing of the order' Therefore' the re-triaf of the appeilant for a charge for which the appellant was acquitted by the first judgment dated 16'07 '2012 while the appellant's acquittal for the offences under sections 302 and 379 of the IPC remained in force, would be hit by section 3OO(1) of the Cr'P'C and section 337(1) of the BNSS' The fundamentai right of the appellant under Article 2O(2) of the Constitution would also be irrevocably impacted. The domino-effect of all subsequent proceedings being nullilredwouldincludetheimpugrredjudgmentdated2S.ol.2025 by which the appellant was convicted of the offences under sections 3O2 and 379 of the IPC'

36. The appellant cannot be made to suffer the consequences of a decision which falls foul of the Constitution and the law of the 37 . We are hence Persuaded to hold that the imPugned constitutional gua-rantee judgment, being in violation of the enshrined in Article 2}l2l of the Constitution' should be set aside' The appellant being re-tried upon a fresh hearing of the matter goes against all principles of 1aw, justice ald equity' Y 1' 77 M'8,,.1 &, BRMR,J crt.A. tt{o..7 00 0f 2 02 5 38. (trrr r ral Appeal No.3O0 of 2O2S is allou,ed b.. s jtting aside the jucgrrr rL. lated 28.O1.2025 passed by the p-i rcrpal District and Sess r r. ; ,J rdge, Sangareddy, in S.C.No.1g1) of 2 j) 1tl.

39. Th. :1 1>ellant/A.2 shall be set at liberty forthrrit r. The fine amount ;a r - :r the apperant/A.2 shall be refunde j rvi,hin 7 days from th,' .1. ,o.rhis judgment. 40 Pt:r d r e niscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stzrn d closed. Sd/- c.V. MALLI1(iARJUNA VARMA J(]INT REGISTRAR NOTE: Since L R ( o:ier; are marked subsequenly, addressee Nos.t t , r-d 1O are added in the addressee colurre.' - I is amendment substitutes the earlier Judgrer,r Jespatchea on ZS_Oi_iOii. Sd/. C.V. MAL I-IKAF:JUNA VARMA IJOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (' /\ I SE C]'ION OFFICER ONE FAir COPY tO tlrC HoNOURABIE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BH/\TI ACHARYA (For iler Lordship,s kind perusa-l)-' - ONC FAir 99PVJO tlr: HONO.URAB!-E JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHI\N RAO (For His _r rds;hip's kinO perusji- To, M 1 The Princ Dal a ny) - ist,.ict and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddrl. t,\r'./ith records, if 2 3 4 5 o 7 o The Additi) ,a . trd cial l\,4aoistrate of First Class, Sangaredrty. rhe Superi-,e , lert DistriciJai, a;d;Jd;;. tBr'i?1"0 ,r",1 The Statior ll r. se Officer. patancheiu poricJSiar.tn,'Sanga-ecrdy. Two ccs 1o'") pubric prosecutor, state oiie-rang";nu, uor, cr)urt Buirdings, at Hyderai,aC ' .,tJT) One CC to S.i r,. Krishna prakash, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Crtp e : I[:,::i,:l;fj:,,:,rr, Union of rndia Ministry of Law, Jusrice ;,nd company na_Advocates Association Library, High court for the 9 The secretarv -er;rnoa . _ State of Terarrrt : ra, iigrr court B;ihlrg;; Hyo"rrora. 10. 1 '1 LR Copies .. _.:. , I :,i ., ::ffi:.:x:x x HIGH COURT MB, J & BRMR, J DATEDi25l04i20i'!\ JUDGMENT CRLA.No.300 of 2ti'.s ALLOWING THE CFIIMINAL APPEAL ^.4fl\ _ ta$ -.4 , li' I I : i : I ; I F lHr I r. r7 ) o o 17 i,N ii02:r P a {*t I * S=,:1:) €