J. Vedhasingh vs R.M. Govindan & Ors.

Judicial discipline – Issue decided in a judgment – Conflicting view in a subsequent judgment by a judges’ bench of equal strength – Held: Judicial decorum demands that if judgments passed by two judges’ bench of equal strength are conflicting, the issue of law involved must be referred to a larger bench as the same is desirable to avoid confusion and maintain consistency of law. Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court HELD:1.1. In the judgment of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel it was held that the requirement to prove an offence under the NI Act and an offence under the IPC is different, and it was observed that there may be some overlapping of facts but the ingredients of the offences are entirely different, therefore, the subsequent cases are not barred by any statutory provisions. While in the case of G. Sagar Suri and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao, the Court concluded that as per Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence on the same facts, therefore, the prosecution under Section 420 of the IPC is barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C and accordingly liable to be quashed. [Para 12][898-G-H; 899-A]

1.2. In the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel the judgments of G. Sagar Suri and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao have been referred but distinguished on the ground that it was not raised and decided that ingredients of both offences were not same, and the bar of Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. would not attract. [Para 12][899-B]

1.3. The judgments cited by both the parties are rendered by benches having the strength of two Judges. The bench of this Court in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel followed in M/s. V.S. Reddy and Sons has taken a different view from the previous judgments of G. Sagar Suri and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao rendered by the bench of the same strength. The view taken in both the cases are conflicting to each other. It is a trite law, if any issue is decided in a previous judgment by a bench of the same strength, conflicting view in the subsequent judgment should not be rendered on the pretext that the issue has not been raised or considered in the previous judgment. Judicial decorum demands that if judgments passed by two judges’ bench of equal strength are conflicting, the issue of law involved must be referred to a larger bench as the same is desirable to avoid confusion and maintain consistency of law. The aforesaid judgments cited by the respective parties are conflicting, however, to avoid any further confusion and to maintain consistency, it is deemed appropriate to refer this issue for decision by the larger bench to answer the following questions: (1) Whether the ratio of the judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao lay down the correct law? or The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel as followed in M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct proposition of law? (2) Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial? [Para 12][899-C-H; 900-A] District Manager, APSRTC, Vijaywada v. K. Sivaji, (2001) 2 SCC 135 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 193; and Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P., 2002 AIR SCW 1573 – relied on.

Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr, (2012) 7 SCC 621 : [2012] 3 SCR 1155; M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons v. Muthyala Ramalinga Reddy and Anr. (Crl Appeal No. 1285 of 2015) decided on 28.09.2015; Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and Anr., (2011) 2 SCC 703 : [2011]

2 SCR 364; and G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of UP and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 : [2000] 1 SCR 417 – referred to.