1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No.234 of 2004 [Balaji Digambar Kotgire v. State of Maharashtra] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant. Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for State. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 24st November, 2008 The learned counsel for the applicant seeks to assail the order dated 29-4-2004 passed by the learned 7th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, rejecting his prayer for discharge on the ground, among others, that by judgment dated 10-5-2007, the learned 8th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur has acquitted him for offence in respect of forged currency notes of the same series. In support of prayer for discharge, the learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1, and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, reported at (2001) 6 SCC 181. The question in this revision is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge deciding the application on 29-4-2004 was right or had committed an error in rejecting the application for discharge. The learned Judge could not have 2 visualized that three years thereafter the applicant would be acquitted of offence in respect of different currency notes, but of the same series. There is no question of protection against second or multiple punishment being denied to the applicant, since the offence in respect of different forged currency notes but of the same series is a different offence. If the applicant wants to contend that he is being prosecuted on the same facts, he could take that plea at the trial. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the trial is also vitiated for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the applicant is an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce, which is a Government of India Undertaking, through which the notes were circulated. The foundation of the prosecution case is not that as an officer of the Bank he had circulated the notes. But he did it in his personal capacity and, therefore, this cannot be said to have acted in the capacity of public servant. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions rightly held that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not afford any protection to the applicant. Hence, no case is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The revision is consequently dismissed. JUDGE pdl