STATE OF RAJASTHANversusBHAGWAN DAS AGRAWAL & OTHERS

                       [2013] 17 S.C.R. "i154


A                     STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                                v.
              BHAGWAN DAS AGRAWAL & OTHERS
              (Criminal Appeal No. 2118 of 2013 etc.)
                       DECEMBER 17, 2013.
B
              [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND
                      M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

        CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
c
       s. 186 - Power of High Court to discontinue subsequent
  criminal proceedings in other courts -- Two or more courts
  taking cognizance of offences - Held: The sine qua non for
  application of s. 86 is that the cases instituted in different
  courts are in respect of the same offence arising out of the
D
  same occurrence and the same transaction and the persons
  implicated as accused in different cases must be the same -
  - If these conditions are satisfied then subsequent
  proceedings have to be discontinue.d - Same offence, .. would
  mean that acts and omissions which constitute the offence are
E one and the same -- In the instant case, the nature and
  manner of offences committed by accused persons are not
  identical but are different -- Except the a/legation that
  explosives were loaded at the factory place, the mode and
  manner in which offences were committed at different places
F are not the same -- As such, provision of s. 186 is not attracted
  and High court erred in passing the impugned order, which
  is set aside - Explosives Act, 1884 - Explosive Substances
  Act, 1908 - Penal Code, 1860.

G       A case bearing FIR/Crime No. 161/2010 was
    registered on 13.7.2010 with respect to supply of
    explosives by a concern (RECL) of which respondent No.
    1 WqS the Managing Director, to another concern 'GES'

H                               1154
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHAGWAN DAS                 1155
                 AGRAWAL

during the period from 17 .4.2010 to 29.6.2010 in A
contravention of Explosives Act, Explosive Substances
Act and the Penal Code. A charge-sheet was filed in the
said case before the court at Sagar (M.P.). A similar charge
sheet was filed in the court at Chanderi (M.P.) in FIR/Crime
No. 310/2010 registered on 26.8.23010 in respect of B
supply .of explosives by RECL to another concern,
namely, SEH during the period from 1;4.2010 to 30.6.2010.
A third charge-sheet was filed on 4.1212010 before the
court at Dholpur (Rajasthan) in another FIR/Crime No. 427/
2010, lodged at Police Station, Dholpur, which had c
jurisdiction over the factory place of RECL, in respect of
supplies madljl by 'RECL' to 'GES' aad SEH during ,the
period from 1.4.2010 to 5.9.2010. Respondent no. 1-med
a petition u/s 482 C.P.C. before the High Court
contending that the sum and substance of the allegations D
in the cases in the courts at Sagar, Chanderi and Dholpur
being identical relating to the same occurrence/same
transaction as also the same offence, the criminal
proceedings in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dholput being violative of s. 186(b), Cr.P.C. be
discontinued. The High Court allowed the petition. E
Aggrieved, State of Rajasthan filed Crl. A. No. 2118 of
2013. Crl. A. 2119 of 2013 was filed by the accused-
 respondents in Crl. A. No. 2118 of 2013, as their habeas
corpus petition' was disposed of by the High Court ·
 holding that legality of their remand and detention in F
 respect of FIR No. 427/2010, Kotwali Dholpur would be
adjudicated after the decision on the issue of jurisdiction
 of courts in_Rajasthan by the Supreme Court in Crl. A. No.
 2118 of 2013.
                                                             G
     Disposing of the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. Section 186, Cr.P:c., deals with the powe'r
of the High Cour:t to decide, in case of doubt, the district
where inquiry or trial shall take place. The main object and
                                                               H
    1156    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 17 S.C.R.

A intention of the Legislature in enacting the provision is
  to prevent the accused persons from being
  unnecessarily harassed for the same offences alleged to
  have been committed within the' territorial jurisdiction of
  more than one courts, and, therefore, necessary, direction
B is to be issued to discontinue the su6sequent
  proceedings in other courts. The provision is based on
  the principle of convenience and expediency. However,
  the sine q·ua non for the application of this provision is
  that the cases instituted in different courts are in respect
c of the same offence arising out of the same occurrence,
  the same transaction and the persons implicated as
  accused in different cases must be the same. If these
  conditions are satisfied then subsequent proceeding has
  to be discontinued. [Para 11-12] [1164-G; 1165-D-G]
D      State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan 1988 Suppl. (3)
             =
    SCR 455 (1988) 4 SCC 655 - referred to.
         1.2. In the instant case, the nature and manner of
   offences committed by the accused persons are not
E identical but are different. In respect of some FIRs, one
   accused, a resident of Nepal, was arrested from whose
   custody 498 non electronic detonators were recovered.
   In respect of another FIR, during investigation, it has
   come on the record that the explosives were sold for
F terrorist activities. The fountain head of all the three cases
    may be at Dholpur from where truck loaded with
   explosives moved to different destinations, but from that
    it cannot be said that the acts and omissions which
    constitute the offences are the same. Same offence
G ,.wo·uld mean that acts and omissions which constitute the
   offence are one and the same. Except the allegation that
   the explosives were loaded at Dholpur, the mode and
    manner in which the offences were committed at different
    places are not the same. As such, the provision of s. 186
    of the Code is not attracted in the facts of the instant case,
H
     STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHAGWAN DAS                    1157
                  AGRAWAL

and the High court erred in passing the impugned order,             A
which is set aside. [Para 14, 16, 15] [1167-G-H; 1168-C-G]
                      Case Law Reference:
    1988 Suppl.     (3~ SCR 455     referred to        Para 13
                                                                    B
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal.
No. 2118 of 2013 etc.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2011 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Cr. Case
No. 2705 of 2011.                                                   C

                             WITH
Crl. No. 2119 of 2013

      Ranjit Kumar (A.C), Jaideep Gupta, Ram Naresh Yad<1v          D
(for Pragati Neekhra), D.N. Ray, Sumita Ray, Navnit Kumar (fcir
M/s. Corporate Law Group), Siddhartha Dave, Saurav Mishra,
Jemtiben Ao (For Vibha Datta Makhija) for the appearing
parties.
                                                                    E
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     M.Y. EQBAL, J. : 1. Leave granted:

      2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15th July,
 2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal         F
 Seat at Jabalpur, whereby the petition filed by respondent No.
 1 herein (Bhagwan Das Agrawal) under Section 482 of the
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P .C. ")
 seeking relief to hold that the proceedings based on the
 subsequent and third FIR registered in Dholpur (Rajasthan) as      G
 Crime No. 427/2010 under Section 5/98, 9C of the Explosives
'Act, 1884, in view of the provisions of Section 186 of Cr.P.C.,
 be discontinued, was allowed,. the appellant-State of Rajasthan
 has preferred the special leave petition being No. 8402 of 2011.
                                                                    H
    1158    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A         3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present
    appeal are that in respect of alleged unauthorized and illegal
    supply of explosives by Mis. Rajasthan Explosives and
    Chemicals Ltd., Dholpur (for short, "RECL"), in which
    respondent No. 1 herein 8hagwan Das Agrawal was Managing
8   Director, to M/s. Ganesh Explosives, Sagar during the period
    from 1.7.4.2010 to 29.6.2010 in contravention of the Explosives
    Act, a case at Police Station 8aheria, District Sagar was
    registered on 13.7.2010 -as FIR/Crime No. 161/2010. The
    police after due investigation filed char~e-sheet on 18.11.2010
C   for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-
    8, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and
    Sections 98, 9C of the Explosives Substances Act, 1884 and
    Sections 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act; 1908 in the
    Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar
    against 11 persons including four persons from RECL viz.
D   respondent No. 1 herein (Managing Director), K. Edward Kelly
    (Director, Operations), Vinod Kumar Garg (Chief Manager,
    Marketing) and Rakesh Kumar Agrawal (Manager, Marketing).
    The array of accused persons, inter alia, included Devendra
    Singh Thakur, Jai Kishan Ashwani, Rajendra Choubey, Gopal
E   Shakyawar, Shiv Charan Heda, Deepa Heda and Alakh Das
    Gupta. After filing of the charge-sheet, the Magistrate took
    cognizance of the offences. Similar charge-sheet under
    Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-8, 201/34, IPC read with
    Sections 98 and 9C of the Explosives Substances Act, 1884
F   and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908
    was filed after investigation into another FIR lodged at Police
    Station i:handeri, District Ashok Nagar as FIR/ Crime No. 310/
    2010 on 26.8.2010 for the supply of explosives during the
    period from 1.4.201 O to 30.6.201 O by RECL to another firm M/
G   s. Sangam Explosives, Halanpur in Chanderi, District Ashok
     Nagar. This charge-sheet was filed in the Court of concerned
    Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chanderi against 8 persons
     including four from RECL viz. respondent No. 1 -herein
     (Managing Director), K. Edward Kelly (Director, Operations),
H
     STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHAGWAN DAS                   1159
           AGRAWAL [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

Vinod Kumar Garg (Chief Manager, Marketing) and Rakesh A
Kumar Agrawal (Manager, Marketing). The array 6f accused
persons, inter alia, included Rajendra Kumar Choubey, Anil
Dhupad, Shiv Charan Heda and Jai Kishan Ashwani. In this
case too, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on
25.11.2010. Subsequently on 5.9.2010, in respect of supplies
                                                                   8
made by RECL during the period from 1.4.2010 to 5.9.2010
to Mis. Ganesh Explosives, Sagar and to M/s. Sangam
Explosives, Chanderi, third FIR on the report submitted by a
Committee constituted to investigate into a news published in
the newspaper regarding disappearance of trucks carrying
explosives was lodged at Police Station Dholpur as FIR/Crime C
No. 427/2010 and the police after due investigation filed
charge-sheet on 4.12.2010 against 16 persons for offences
under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC read with
Sections 5, 98 and 9C of the Explosives Substances Act, 1884
and Sections 5 and. 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 D
in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur, Rajasthan
including the four office bearers of RECL viz. respondent No.
1 herein (Managing Director), K. Edward Kelly (Director,
Operations), Vinod Kumar Garg (Chief Manager, Marketing)
and Rakesh Kumar Agrawal (Manager, Marketing). The array E
of accused persons, inter alia included Shiv Charan Heda,
 Rajendra Kumar Choubey, Jai Kishan, Ashwani (also arrayed
 as acused in Sagar and Chanderi Courts) and Jagdish Soni,
 Uday Lal Kabra, Lalit Gangwani, Girdhar Bhai, Arvind, Sunil,
 Damji Bhai, Jitender Taank & Chimman Lal. The Magistrate F
 took congnizance of the offences on 4.12.2010. It is thus clear
 that the charge-sheets were filed for the same offences against
 the officers (four in No.) of RECL as also the concerned
 persons of Mis. Ganesh Explosives and Mis. Sangam
 Explosives with the only difference that first FIR at Baheria was G
 for supply made to M/s. Ganesh Explosives, second FIR at
 Chanderi for supply made to Mis. Sang am Explosives and the
 third FIR at Dholpur for supplies made both to Mis. Ganesh
 Explosives and M/s. Sangam Explosives. The final outcome
                                                                  H
      1160     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 17 S.C.R.


 A    was that for the same offences, cognizance came to be taken
      by the courts at Sagar, Chanderi and Dholpur.

           4. As per FIR/Crime No. 161 of 2010, 60 trucks of
      explosive material outbound from RECL, Dholpur to Mis.
      Ganesh Explosives, P.S. Baheria (M.P.} actually reached (i} M/
 B    s. Ajay Explosive, Ahmadnagar (Maharashtra} (ii} Mis. B.M.
      Traders, Bywara (M.P.}, and (iii} M/s. B.M. Traders, Bhilwara
      (Rajasthan}. FIR/Crime No. 310 of 2010 recorded that 103
      trucks of explosive material outbound from RECL, Dholpur to
      Mis. Sangam Explosives at P.S. Chanderi (M.P.) actually
 C    reached (i) M/s. B.M. Traders, Bywara (M.P.) and (ii) Mis. Ajay
      Traders, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). As per FIR/Crime No. 427/2010,
      M/s. RECL, Dholpur sold explosive material illegally to (i) Mis.
      Ganesh Explosives, Sagar (M.P.) and (ii) M/s. Sangam
      Explosives, Ashok Nagar (M.P .) after the expiry of their
· D   licences. The same never reached the destinations and were
      diverted in their midqle to Bhilwara (Raj.), Bywara (M.P.) etc.
      The explosives were also sold for terrorist activities which stood
      revealed from FIR No.130/2010 P.S. Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
        5. It was alleged in the petition filed by respondent No. 1
 E herein before the High Court that RECL was incorporated as
   a private limited company in 1980; the factory of RECL at
   Dholpur, Rajasthan got commissioned in 1981 & since then
   regular production of explosives has been taking place there;
   and RECL was making regular supplies amongst other dealers
 F to M/s. Ganesh J;:xplosives as also to Mis. Sangam Explosives.
   It was alleged that what was investigated and charge-sheeted
   by the police of P.S. Baheria and P.S. Chanderi was put
   together and re-investigated by the P.S. Dholpur. It was further
   alleged that when cognizance of selfsame offence is taken by
 G more than one court, then in such circumstances Section 186
   Cr.P.C. comes into play in order to cap such situation and as
   the first court happened to be the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
   First Class, Sagar, M.P. to have initiated proceedings by
   taking c'ongnizance of the offence upon submission of charge-
 H
      STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHAGWAN DAS                       1161
            AGRAWAL [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

 sheet by the police of P.S. Baheria in FIR/Crime No. 161/2010,        A
.that court being the court in whose appellate criminal jurisdiction
 the proceedings first commenced was the court vested with the
 requisite jurisdiction under Section 186 Cr.P.C. to decide and
 make a declaration. It was alleged that the sum and substance
 of the allegations in the cases registered at P.S. Baheria, P.S.      B
 Chanderi and P.S. Dholpur happen to be identical, relating to
 the same occurrence/same transaction as also the same
 offence i.e. illegal supply of explosives contrary to the
 Explosives Rules by RECL to M/s. Ganesh Explosives and M/
 s. Sangam Explosives. Accordingly, prayer was made to
 declare the criminal proceedings in the Court of Chief Judicial
                                                                       c
 Magistrate, Dholpur being violative of Section 186(b) Cr.P.C.
 and to discontinue the same.
     6. The High Court by the impugned order dated 15.7.2011
while allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein           D
purportedly to give effect to the provision of Section 186(b) of
Cr.P.C. has observed as under:
      "On perusal of third FIR and charge sheet submitted in
      that respect, it is apparently clear that in contravention
      of the provisions of the Explosives Act, Rajasthan               E
      Explosives and Chemicals Ltd. (RECL in short) Dholpur
      supplied explosives to Mis. Ganesh Agency, Sagar and
      Mis. Sangam Agency, Chanderi. On perusal of both
      earlier FIRs, it is revealed that there are 11 accused
      persons facing trial in Sagar (M.P.) and 8 accused               F
      persons are facing trial in Ashok Nagar (M.P.) Court. In
      the charge sheet submitted on the basis of subsequent
      and third FIR, accused persons and alleged offences are
      the same.
      xxx   xxx xxx                                                    G

      Admittedly, Rajasthan Court had taken cognizance of the
      offence, which was already a subject matter of the case
      already pending in the court of Sagar and also taken
      congnizance of the case which has already been pending
                                                                       H
      1162   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013) 17 S.C.R.


. A      in the court of Ashok Nagar (M.P.). The proceedings has
         first commenced in Sagar and in Chanderi respectively
         within the jurisdictiqn ofrhf? High Court of Madhya
         Pradesh, hence, subsequent proceedings initiated and
         registered in Dholpur Court stands discontinued and is
 B       liable to be discontinued.
         Needless to write that this order will not be a bar to deal
         with the offences which are not the subject matter of the
         cases pending already in the courts of Madhya Pradesh."
 C       7. ln the special leave petition, the appellant-State of
   Rajasthan has contended that in connivance with respondent
   No. 1 herein 103 trucks of explosives were delivered to the
   Magazines of Mis. Ajay Explosives which belongs to Shiv
   Charan Heda and 60 trucks of explosives to Mis. B.M. Traders
   which belongs to Deepa Heda, both relatives of Jai Kishan
 D Ashwani. It is alleged that the magazines of Mis. Ganesh
   Explosives and Mis. Sangam Explosives are not operational
   since many years and with the forged documentation in the
   name of said firms the explosives were purchased by M/s. Ajay
   Explosives and Mis. B.M. Traders and the explosives were then
 E sold to some unknown persons which are serious threat to the
   security of the nation and one such example is the registration
   of FIR in Crime No. 130/2010 P.S. Karol Bagh under Sections
   4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act in which the accused
   Loknath Pant, a resident of Nepal was arrested and in whose
 F custody 498 non-electronic detonator and 29.12 meter fuse
   wire were recovered and in the packing of the cartons it was
   revealed that the said explosives were from RECL, Dholpur. It
   is contended that the High Court has erred in law and fact by
   discontinuing the proceedings at Dholpur (Rajasthan) because
 G cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of court at Dholpur
   and the territorial jurisdiction of a court regarding criminal
   offenco. is to be decided on the basis of place of occurrence
   of the incident and not on the basis of where complaint was
   filed. It is further alleged in the special leave petition that even
 H the Committee comprising Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deputy
     STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHAGWAN DAS                    1163
           AGRAWAL [M.Y. EQBAL, J.)

 Superintendent of Police and General Manager of District A
 Industrial Centre in its report submitted to the Superintendent
 of Police, Dholpur has stated that the manufacturing licence of
 RECL was valid till 31.3.2010 and the said company sold the
 explosive material to Mis. Ganesh Explosives and M/s. Sangam
 Explosives from the month of April 2010 till June 2010 illegally B
 when their licences too had expired and RECL has sold the
 material in excess to the stipulated quantity mentioned in the
 licence. It was found by the Committee that there was no receipt/
  proof with RECL whether the trucks reached the destinations
 or not and further RECL had violated thl!·Explosive R1'1tes; It is c
  alleg9d that the payments in lieu of sold explosive materials
  were made through the Demand Drafts of ICICI Bank, Yes
  Bank, Axis Bank and lndusland Bank situated at Rajkot and the
  payment was being made through the agents of Ganga
  Enterprises, Sidhnath Enterprises, Govind Kripa Enterprises, D
  Thakkar Enterprises, Bhagwati Enterprises and Jyoti
  Enterprises, Rajkot. These agents used to prepare the demand
  drafts in the name of RECL and give to one Jagdish Soni (an
  accused in FIR No.427/10 at Dholpur) who used to pass on the
  demand drafts to Shiv Charan Heda (an accused in all the
  FIRs). These six agents, who had been arrested on 22.12.2010 E
  by Dholpur Police Station upon a supplementary charge-sheet
  being filed and have not been arrayed as accused in the
  proceedings pending in the courts at Sagar and Chanderi
  (Madhya Pradesh), have been impleaded as respondent Nos.
  3 to 8 in the present proceedings. It is lastly alleged that the F
  respondent could not have filed the second petition because
  he along with other office bearers of RECL has withdrawn the
  first petition seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No.
  161/2010 registered at P.S. Baheria on the ground that they·
  were already facing trial in Crime No. 427/2010 registered by G
. the Dholpur Police on the same set of charges and no liberty
  was granted by the High Court to file a fresh petition.
     8. The respondents impleaded in SLP(Crl.) No. 8402 of
 2011, have filed SLP (Crl.) No. 2180 of 2012 challenging the
 order dated 4.1.2012 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan,       H
    1164     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013) 17 S.C.R.


A Bench at Jaipur whereby the habeas corpus petition filed by
  them was disposed of holding that the question of remand of
  the accused-petitioners in FIR No. 427/2010, Kotwali Dholpur
  by the court in the State of Rajasthan was in accordance with
  law or not and the detention of the accused-petitioners is illegal,
B are the questions which are to be adjudicated only after the
  issue of jurisdiction of courts in Rajasthan pending before the
  Apex Court in SLP(Crl.) No. 8402 of 2011 is decided. The said
  SLP(Crl.) No. 2180 of 2012 was directed to be put up along
  with SLP(Crl.) No. 8402 of 2011. Hence, both the special leave
c petitions are before us.
        9. While issuing notice in SLP(Crl.) No .. 8402 of 2011, this
    Court on 25.11.2011 passed the following order:
        "Mr. U. U. La/it, learned senior counsel appearing for .
        respondent no. 1 on caveat stated that though the J;ligh
D       Court has quashed the proceedings at the Dholpur Court
        in Rajasthan, the respondents have no objection if the
        proceedings are continued at Dholpur, but in that case
        the proceedings arising from the same set of facts in the
        two Courts in Madhra Pradesh, i.e. at Sagar and
E       Chander! may have to be quashed.
        Issue notice to the non-appearing respondent on the
        limited question whether the proceedings should
        continue at Dholpur or at the two places (Sagar and
        Chander!) in Madhya Pradesh."
F
         10. The short question that falls for consideration in the
    instant case is as to whether the proceedings should continue
    at Dholpur or at the two places (Sagar and Chanderi) in
    Madhya Pradesh.
G        11. Section 186, Cr.P.C., which deals with the power of
    the High Court to decide, in case of doubt, the district where
    inquiry or trial shall take place, is extracted hereinbelow:-
         "186. High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where
         inquiry or trial shall take place.- Where two or more
H
     STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHAGWAN DAS                     1165
           AGRAWAL [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

    Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and             A
    a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into
    or try that offence, the question shall be decided -
    (a) if the Courts are subordinate 'fo the same High Court,
    by that High Court;
                                                                     B
    (b) if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High
    Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose
    appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first
    commenced,
    and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that           c
    offence shall be discontinued. "
     12. From bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is
    manifest that' the m~in object and intention of the
    Legislature in enacting the provision is to prevent the
    accused persons from being unnecessarily harassed for            D
    the same offences alleged to have been committed within
    the territorial jurisdiction of more than one courts. In order
    to avoid unnecessary harassment of the accused to
    appear and face trial in more than one courts, necessary
    direction is to be issued to discontinue the subsequent          E
    proceedings in other courts. The provision is based on the
    principle of convenience and expediency. However, the
    sine qua non for the application of this provision is that the
    cases instituted in different courts are in respect of the
    same offence arising out of the same occurrence and that         F
    the same transaction and that the parties are the same. In
    other words, the persons implicated as an accused in
    different cases must be the same. If these conditions are
    satisfied then subsequent proceeding has to be
    discontinued.
                                                                     G
     13. Chapter XXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals
with the provisions with regard to the enquiries and trials.
Section 300 debars the Court from proceeding with the trial in
respect of the same offence for which the accused has already
                                                                     H
    1166      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013) 17 S.C.R.


A   been tried and convicted or acquitted. However, a person
    convicted for any offence may be afterwards tried if such act
    constituted a different offence from that of which he was
    convicted. This Court elaborately dealt with the provisions
    contained in Section 300 Cr.P.C. in the case of State of Bihar
B   v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC page 655. Some of the
    paragraphs are worth to be quoted hereinafter.
        "26. Broadly speaking, a protection against a second -0r
        multiple punishment for the same offence, technical
        complexities aside, includes a protection against re-
c       prosecution after acquittal, a protection against re-
        prosecution after conviction and a protection against ·
        double or multiple punishment for the same offence.
        These prqtections have since received constitutional
        guarantee under Article 20(2). But difficulties arise in the
D       application of the principle in the context of what is meant
        by "same offence". The principle in American law is
        stated thus:
        "The proliferation of technically different offences
        encompassed in a single instance of crime behaviour
E       has increased the importance of defining the scope of the
        offence that controls for purposes of the double jeopardy
        guarantee.
        Distinct statutory provisions will be treated as involving
        separate offences for double jeopardy purposes only if
F        'eac/1 provision requires proof of an additional fact which
        the other does not' (Blockburger v. United States). Where
        the same evidence suffices to prove both crimes, they
        are the same for double jeopardy purposes, and the
         clause fJrbids successive trials and cumulative
G       punishments for the two crimes. The offences must be
        joined in one indictment and tried together unless the
         defendant requests that they be tried separately.
           27. The expression "the same offen.ce", "substantially the
           same offence" "in effect the same offence" or "practically
H
     STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHAGWAN DAS                       1167
           AGRAWAL [M.Y. EQBAL, J.}

     the same", have not done much to lessen the difficulty           A
   , in applying the tests to identify the legal common
     denominators of "same offence". Friedland in Double
     Jeopardy (Oxford 1969) says at p. 108:
    "The trouble with this approach is that it is vague and
    hazy and conceals the thoµght processes of the court.             B
    Such an inexact test must qepend upon the individual
    impressions of the judges and can give little guidance
    for future decisions. A more serious consequence is the
    fact that a decision in one case that two offences are
    'substantially the same' may compel the same result in            C
    another case involving the same two offences where the
    circumstances may be such that a second prosecution
    should be permissible .... "
     28. In order that the prohibition is attracted the same act
     must constitute an offence under more than one Act. If D
     there are two distinct and separate offences with different
     ingredients under two different enactments, El double
     punishment is not barred. In Leo Roy Frey v.
     Superintendent, District Jail, the question arose whether
     a crime and the offence of conspiracy to commit it are E
     different offences. This Court said: (SCR p. 827)
     "The offence of conspiracy to commit a crime is a
     different offence from the crime that is the object of the
     conspiracy because the conspiracy precedes the
     commission of the crime and is complete before the               F
     crime is attempted or completed, equally the crime
     attempted or completed does not require the element of
     conspiracy as one of its ingredients. They are, therefore,
     quite separate offences. "
                                                                      G
     14. In the instant case, as noticed above, the nature and
manner of offences committed by the accused persons are not
identical but are diffj:lrent, for example, in respect of FIR Crime
No.130 of 2010 the accused persons in connivance with
respondent No.1 delivered 103 _trucks of explosives to the
                                                                      H
    1168     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A   Magazines of Mis. Ajay Explosives which belonged to Shiv
    Charan Heda and 60 trucks of explosives to M/s. B.M. Traders
    which belonged to Deepa Heda. It was alleged that the
    Magazines of Mis. Ganesh Explosives and M/s. Sangam
    Explosives were not operational since many years and with the
B   forged documentation in the name of the said firms the
    explosives were purchased by Mis. Ajay Explosives and M/s.
    B.M. Traders and subsequently those explosives were sold to
    some unknown persons. In respect of those Fl Rs, one accused,
    a resident of Nepal, was arrested and from whose custody 498
C   non electronic detonators were recovered. In respect of another
    FIR, during investigation, it has come on the record that those
    explosives were sold for terrorist activities.
          15. Offence means any act or omission made punishable
    by law. The fountain head of all the three cases mafbe at
D   Dholpur from where truck loaded with explosives moved to
    different destinations but from that it cannot be said that the acts
    and omissions which constitute the offence are the same. Same
    offence, in our opinion, would mean that acts and omissions
    which constitute the offence are one and the same. Except the
E   allegation that the explosives were loaded at Dholpur, the mode
    and manner in which the offence was committed at different
    places are not the same. As such, in our opinion; the provision
    of Section 186 of the Code is not attracted in the facts of the
    present case. Hence, the High court erred in passing the
    impugned order.
F
         16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
    the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the
    High Court is to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal
    preferred by the State of Rajasthan is allowed and the appeal
G   preferred by the accused stands disposed of.
    Rajendra Prasad                                  Appeals disposed of.

                            END OF 2013
                             *************