SC: SECTION 186 Cr.P.C. IS BASED ON PRINCIPLE OF CONVENIENCE The operative part of the judgement read as under : In order to avoid unnecessary harassment of the accused to appear and face trial in more than one court, necessary direction is to be issued to discontinue the subsequent proceedings in other courts. The provision of Section 186 is based on the principle of convenience and expediency. However, the sine qua non for the application of this provision is that the cases instituted in different courts are in respect of the same offence arising out of the same occurrence and that the same transaction and that the parties are the same. In other words, the persons implicated as an accused in different cases must be the same. If these conditions are satisfied then the subsequent proceeding has to be discontinued. Section 300 debars the Court from proceeding with the trial in respect of the same offence for which the accused has already been tried and convicted or acquitted. However, a person convicted for any offence may be afterwards tried if such act constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted. This Court elaborately dealt with the provisions contained in Section 300 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the nature and manner of offences committed by the accused persons are not identical but are different, for example, in respect of FIR Crime No. 130 of 2010 the accused persons in connivance with respondent No. 1 delivered 103 trucks of explosives to the Magazines of M/s. Ajay Explosives which belonged to Shiv Charan Heda and 60 trucks of explosives to M/ s. B.M. Traders which belonged to Deepa Heda. It was alleged that the Magazines of M/s Ganesh Explosives and M/s. Sangam Explosives were not operational since many years and with the forged documentation in the name of the said firms the explosives were purchased by M/s. Ajay Explosives and M/s. B.M. Traders and subsequently those explosives were sold to some unknown persons. The fountain head of all the three cases may be at Dholpur from where truck loaded with explosives moved to different destinations but from that it cannot be said that the acts and omissions which constitute the offence are the same. Same offence, in our opinion, would mean that acts and omissions which constitute the offence are one and the same. Except the allegation that the explosives were loaded at Dholpur, the mode and manner in which the offence was committed at different places are not the same. As such, in our opinion, the provision of Section 186 of the Code is not attracted in the facts of the present case. Reference : Supreme Court. State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das Agrawal & Others, criminal appeal no. 2118 of 2013. Subscribe LAWTELLER magazine (monthly printed-edition) visit: payumoney/store/buy/lawteller #legal #advocate #attorney #solicitor #lawyer #vakil #court #law #supremecourt #barrister #justice #india #judgment #Judge #sc #evidence #death #accident #compensation #constitution #witness #highcourt #lawteller
Posted on: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:43:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015