IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4411 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.203/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI- 5. .................... (CR.NO.3/2008 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- KUNJUMON, S/O.ABDUL KHADER MUSLIAR, KALAPURAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, AROOR, CHANDIROOR P.O., PIN-688 514. BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SRI.PMA.KALAM, SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA (REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE-CR.30/2008 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4411 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 30th November, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was tried in C.C.1687/2008 by Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi, based on Annexure-C final report submitted by Sub Inspector of police, Njarakkal Police Station on the allegation that petitioner in his capacity as Manager of Abad Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. along with first accused therein the owner, voluntarily let out effluent from the company run in H.No.VII/326 of Elamkunnapuzha Village to Bandar Canal and thereby polluted the water in the said canal and by the rash and negligent act of letting out the effluent, endangered human life on 7/1/2008 and Crmc 4411/10 2 thereby committed the offences under Sections 277 and 336 of Indian Penal Code and Section 15 of Environment (Protection) Act. Petitioner along with first accused pleaded not guilty. By Annexure-D judgment dated 27/4/2010, both the accused were acquitted, based on the evidence recorded finding that prosecution failed to adduce reliable evidence to prove that any waste material or effluent was let out to Bandar Canal from Abad Fisheries Pvt. Ltd as alleged on 7/1/2008 or committed any causative factor for the foul smell in the environment. Petitioner is being tried in C.C.203/2010 by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi for the offences under Sections 277 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and Section 15 of Environment (Protection) Act based on Annexure-B final report submitted by the same Sub Inspector of Crmc 4411/10 3 Police, Njarakkal. In Annexure-C final report which was taken cognizance in C.C.1687/2008 was filed, the date is not shown. Annexure-B final report is dated 14/6/2008. It is taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 277 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and Section 15 of Environment (Protection) Act by the learned Magistrate. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken and further proceedings contending that trial is barred under Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure as petitioner was tried and acquitted on the same set of facts and allegations in C.C.1687/2008. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexures-B and C final reports Crmc 4411/10 4 submitted by the same investigating officer show that material allegations in both the final reports are one and the same. Though in Annexure-C final report apart from the petitioner, Director of Abad Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. was also implicated as first accused. In C.C.203/2010 petitioner as the Manager alone was implicated. In both cases allegation is that on 7/1/2008 effluents were discharged to Bander Canal from Abad Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. and thereby committed the offence under Section 15 of Environment (Protection) Act. In addition, in Annexure-C final report offences under Sections 227 and 336 of Indian Penal Code is alleged. In Annexure-B final report offence under Sections 277 and 427 of Indian Penal Code were alleged. 4. As rightly pointed out by the Crmc 4411/10 5 learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Annexure-D judgment shows that first point considered by the learned Magistrate was whether accused persons rashly and negligently let out effluent from Abad Fisheries Pvt. Ltd, Malipuram to Bander Canal in such a manner as to foul the water in the said canal endangering human life or resulting physical discomfort as allegation was that due to the said discharge of effluent, discomfort was caused to students of IIVUP School. Allegation in Annexure-B is also same. Though instead of students, it is alleged that damages were caused to the prawn cultivation. 5. Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of Crmc 4411/10 6 such offence shall while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not 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 221 or for which he might have been convicted under Sub Section (2) thereof. Though Sub Section (2) provides that a person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub Section (1) of Section 200 there is no case for the prosecution that any consent of the State Government was obtained in this case. Bar provided under Sub Section (1) of Section 300 Crmc 4411/10 7 is not only for the trial for same offence for which the person has been tried and convicted or acquitted but also on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made. Therefore, when the offence charged in C.C.203/2010 are based on the same set of facts alleged in C.C.1687/2008 and the charge alleged could have been framed, Section 300 bars trial on the same set of facts. Hence continuation of the proceedings in C.C.203/2010 can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. C.C.203/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.