IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2778 of 2009 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33075/2008 Dated 30/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- P.P.JOHNSON, AGED 45, S/O.LATE P.P.PAPPACHAN RESIDING AT POONOLIL HOUSE, THANIPUZHA, OKKAL (PO) KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL CRIMES BRANCH, CHENNAI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC FOR CBI R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2778 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated March 30, 2009, rejecting the contentions of the petitioner/appellant herein, the present appeal is filed. 2. The petitioner/appellant, who is charged in two criminal cases vide Exts.P26 and P27 under the Indian Penal Code towards deficiencies of stock and misappropriation of the amount therein, has been brought before this Court under two criminal cases for two different and distinct offences. The main contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge and this Court is that registration of two separate criminal cases and enquiry thereunder would amount to double jeopardy which is impermissible under law. 3. The principle of double jeopardy is not applicable to the present set of facts. Double jeopardy means a person cannot be accused, tried or convicted for the same offences WA No.2778 of 2009 -:2:- twice. It indicates that a person or accused cannot be tried for the same offence even under two different proceedings. But admittedly in the present case two distinct and separate offences were committed by the appellant. 4. On perusal of Charge in Crime No.1439/05 registered in the Aluva police Station, it indicates that appellant is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 408, 468 and 471 IPC. The other case is in respect of Crime No.649/05 registered in the Cheruthuruthy police station for a distinct offence under Section 409 IPC. Though the accused is common and some of the offences may be common, by that itself it cannot be held that the offender is being double jeopardised for the same offence when prima facie there are two distinct and separate occurrences and instances as well as penal liabilities. 5. In that view of the matter, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the contention of the violation of double jeopardy does not apply to the principles of this case and we find no merit to interfere with the well WA No.2778 of 2009 -:3:- considered order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly it is dismissed. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb