1 REVN 302.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 302 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 303 OF 2011 Nagaraju Narayana Sanginathan. ... Applicant. Orig. Acc. No.3. V/s. Narcotic Control Bureau & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Ayaz Khan i/b. Mr. Rajendra Bidkar and Yogini Kadam for the Applicant. Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves for the Respondent No.1 Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 23rd AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and NCB extensively. 2. The Applicant questions propriety of the order dated 30th March 2011 recorded by the Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act in N.D.P.S. Special Case No.59 of 2006 and 44 of 2005, rejecting application moved below exhibit 38 for discharge. 3. A consignment of Ephedrine tablets on secret information was seized at Mumbai by Officers of N.C.B. from two suspects. The Accused/Applicant has not disputed of manufacturing the controlled substance the tablets. He was 2 REVN 302.11.sxw also prosecuted by N.C.B. vide C.C. No.177 of 2005 before the learned Special Judge and Additional Special Court under N.D.P.S. Act at Chennai on the events having taken place in Mumbai. On his pleading guilty, the learned Special Judge at Chennai found the Accused/Applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9-A r/w. 26 and 38 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and Rule 7(1) of N.D.P.S. (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993. 4. The learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant submits that since he has been prosecuted at Chennai Court by the same prosecuting agency for the same offence, there could not have been separate prosecution against him at Mumbai for the consignment of 67.160 k.gs. and 3.50 k.gs. of the above referred tablets. 5. The learned Counsel for N.C.B. submits that the two prosecutions are altogether distinct case at Chennai was dealing with contravention of Rule 7(1) of NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993, while the prosecution of the Accused/Applicant at Mumbai was for transportation of Ephedrine tablets a controlled substance from Hydrabad to Mumbai in contravention of Rules and Form No.4 as was required under the statute. 6. The learned Counsel also submits that the conviction recorded at Channai is in terms of Section 9-A r/w. 26 and 38 of NDPS Act and Rule 7(1) while the prosecution against the Accused/Applicant at Mumbai is for contravention of Rule 4 of 3 REVN 302.11.sxw the above referred order alongwith Section 29 of NDPS Act. 7. Section 300 of Cr.P.C. conceive as under :- " A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be 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 Section (2) thereof." 8. Considering this legal position, and facts discussed above it is unconceivable that the prosecution at Chennai or Mumbai is on different facts or involve different offence. The prosecution of the Accused/Applicant at Mumbai is squarely on the same facts on which he was convicted being prosecuted by NCB. Consequently, his prosecution is in violation of Section 300 (1) of Cr.P.C. 9. The Application is allowed. The Accused/Applicant is discharged from both the cases pending before the learned Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act. 10. Heard. The order is stayed for 60 days. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 4 REVN 302.11.sxw