Summary
The appellant was acquitted in 2010 of kidnapping a man in 2002. A second FIR for his murder followed in 2011 after a skeleton was found and identified. The Special Court declined to decide his plea of double jeopardy under Section 300(1) CrPC on his discharge application, saying it could be raised at the hearing on charge. The Calcutta High Court agreed. The Supreme Court held that discharge under Section 227 is a stage before framing of charge under Section 228, and that a Section 300 objection must be decided at that stage. It remitted the matter for decision within six weeks. It refused to discharge the appellant itself, because an earlier refusal to quash the proceedings had become final.
Issues
- At what stage a trial court must decide an accused's plea under Section 300(1) CrPC that a second prosecution on the same facts is barred: on the discharge application under Section 227 or at the hearing on framing of charge.
Provisions considered
- Sections 227, 228 and 300(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Discharge under Section 227 precedes framing of charge under Section 228 and is the stage at which an objection under Section 300(1) must be considered; only if it is overruled and sufficient grounds exist may charge be framed. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 10)
Held
- The stage of discharge under Section 227 is prior to framing of charge under Section 228, and it is at that stage that the court can consider an application under Section 300; the trial court erred in deferring the Section 300(1) objection to the hearing on charge, and the High Court failed to appreciate this. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The prayer for discharge on the Section 300(1) bar could not be granted by this Court directly, because the High Court's earlier refusal to quash the proceedings on the same ground, relegating the accused to the discharge stage, had attained finality. (¶ 9)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 2249 of 2022 disposed of; the Calcutta High Court judgment dated 27.06.2022 in CRR No. 1328 of 2022 set aside and the matter remitted to the Special Court to decide the application under Section 300(1) together with the discharge application under Section 227 within six weeks, uninfluenced by the observations of either court.