http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SURENDRA GUPTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHAGWANDEVI

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/04/1994

BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  509            1994 SCC  (4) 657  1994 SCALE  (2)625

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           ORDER 1.   The short question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the High Court was right in its finding that  the  appellants were liable to be proceeded  with  and were  not  liable to be discharged on the  second  complaint filed  under  Section  494  IPC, for  which  they  had  been convicted and sentenced earlier. 2.   Appellant  1 is said to have married appellant  2.  The wife  of  appellant 2 one Promila filed  a  complaint  under Section 494 IPC, in which the appellants were convicted  and sentenced  to undergo simple imprisonment for two years  and fine of Rs 2000 each and in default of the payment of fine I further  period of six months’ imprisonment.   Subsequently, Respondent 1, who claims to be husband of appellant 1, filed the  present complaint against appellants 1 and 2 and  other relations, who too were parties in the first complaint.  The appellants  claimed that since they had been  convicted  for the  offence, they were liable to be discharged.  The  trial court  dismissed  the application against which  they  filed revision.   The  High Court maintained tile order  and  held that  the benefit of Section 300 of the  Criminal  Procedure Code was not available as the facts were not the same. 3.   Sub-section (1) of Section 300 CrPC bars a second trial for the same offence.  The High Court itself found that  the offence was the same yet it dismissed the application of the appellants  for  discharging them as facts  were  not  same. Sub-section (1) of Section 300 CrPC reads as under: 657               "300. (1) A person who has once been tried  by               a  Court  of  competent  jurisdiction  for  an               offence  and  convicted or acquitted  of  such               offence  a  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

             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." It shall be seen that it bars a fresh trial if a person  had been  tried  and  convicted  or  acquitted  by  a  court  of competent  Jurisdiction  for the same offence.   Offence  is defined  by clause (n) of Section 2 of the CrPC to mean  ,an act  or omission made punishable by the Act’.   The  offence for which the appellants were tried earlier was the  offence of  bigamy  under  Section  494  IPC.   The  second   trial, therefore,  may  be  at  the  instance  of  the  husband  of appellant 1 is clearly barred by Section 300 CrPC, as it  is for  the  same  offence.  The High Court,  in  our  opinion, misdirected itself in recording the finding that facts being different, except the alleged marriage the second  complaint was  liable  to  be  proceeded with.  We  do  not  find  any distinction  on  facts except that the first  complaint  was filed by the first wife of the husband and second  complaint has  been filed by the husband of the wife, appellant 1  who is said to have remarried appellant 2. The offence of bigamy is  committed when a husband or wife in the lifetime of  his spouse  marries.  When a person is tried and  convicted  for such an offence on the complaint of a person, authorised  by law  to  do so, he or she cannot be prosecuted and  tried  a second time for the same offence on another complaint  filed by  another person.  The bar under Section 300 is for  trial and  conviction of the same offence.  Since offence  remains the same the appellants cannot be tried and convicted for it once again. 4.   In  the  result, this appeal succeeds and  is  allowed. The  order passed by the High Court and the  Magistrate  are set aside.  The appellants shall stand discharged. 658