Summary
The appellant had invested about Rs 62 lakhs with the respondents under a profit-sharing arrangement for developing house sites. When the repayment cheque was dishonoured, he prosecuted them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A case was also registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC. The Madras High Court quashed the IPC case as an abuse of process, since the Section 138 case on the same facts was pending. The Court found that two-Judge Bench decisions conflicted. G. Sagar Suri and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao barred IPC prosecution on the same facts, Kolla relying on Section 300(1) CrPC. Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel, followed in V.S. Reddy and Sons, allowed it because the ingredients differ. The questions were referred to a larger Bench.
Issues
- Whether G. Sagar Suri and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao, or the later Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel as followed in V.S. Reddy and Sons, lay down the correct law.
- Whether, on the same allegations of fact, an accused can be tried both under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and for IPC offences such as cheating, and whether Section 300(1) CrPC bars the later trial.
Provisions considered
- Section 300(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 300(1) is wider than Article 20(2) and bars a second trial on the same facts even for a different offence. Whether it bars IPC prosecution after a Section 138 case on the same facts was among the questions referred. (¶¶ 10, 12)
- Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Sangeetaben held that a Section 138 offence needs no proof of mens rea and has different ingredients from cheating, so overlapping facts do not bar a separate IPC case. The correctness of that view was referred to a larger Bench. (¶¶ 8, 12)
Held
- G. Sagar Suri quashed an IPC prosecution under Sections 406 and 420 launched while a Section 138 complaint on the same transaction was pending, as an abuse of process. Kolla Veera Raghav Rao held that where the facts are the same, Section 300(1) CrPC bars a prosecution under Section 420 IPC even though the offences differ. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel, followed in V.S. Reddy and Sons, held that the ingredients of a Section 138 offence and of cheating are entirely different. A later IPC case is therefore not barred despite overlapping facts. It distinguished the earlier rulings on the ground that the identity of ingredients had not been raised there. (¶¶ 8, 12)
- These decisions by Benches of equal strength conflict. A later Bench should not take a conflicting view merely because an issue was not raised earlier. Judicial decorum requires that such a conflict be referred to a larger Bench to keep the law consistent. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Questions referred to a larger Bench, and the Registry directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for orders.