News

 

 Natural treatment options have seen a surge in popularity in recent years, particularly in urban centers like Bangalore. Many people are now seeking holistic approaches to health that prioritize the body’s innate ability to heal itself.  Natural treatments focus on addressing the root causes of ailments rather than merely alleviating symptoms, making them a compelling alternative for the treatment of all diseases. Based on the facts this is a report on the Bangalore's most effective naturopathic centre.

 

 

Choosing Natural Treatment in Bangalore at naturopathbengaluru.in

 Bangalore boasts a vibrant community of practitioners who specialize in various natural healing modalities, from Ayurveda and homeopathy to herbal medicine and acupuncture.  In addition to restoring body balance, these treatments promote healthier lifestyle choices to improve overall well-being. 

Choosing natural treatment is not just about managing illness; it's about embracing a philosophy of health that empowers individuals.  

 With an abundance of resources available in Bangalore, including wellness centers and trained professionals, residents have unprecedented access to effective natural therapies that can support their journey toward optimal health. Most educated people are choosing naturopathbengaluru.in. Today, when you embrace this all-encompassing strategy. Your body will thank you!

 

Choosing a Naturopathy Centre in Bangalore

 When considering holistic health solutions, the Naturopathy Centre in Bangalore stands out as a beacon of hope for those seeking natural healing methods without side effects.  Naturopathy places an emphasis on the body's inherent ability to heal itself through natural therapies, in contrast to conventional treatments that frequently rely on pharmaceuticals with potential side effects. 

 

At naturopathbengaluru.in, patients are guided by experienced practitioners who tailor treatment plans to individual needs, utilizing a combination of herbal remedies, dietary adjustments, and lifestyle changes.  In addition to improving well-being as a whole, this individualized approach targets the underlying causes of ailments rather than just treating symptoms. 

Choosing the Naturopathy Centre in Bangalore means investing in your health with confidence and peace of mind.  Here, you can embark on a journey towards wellness that prioritizes safety and efficacy ensuring that you can reclaim your vitality without worrying about harmful side effects.  

 Whether you’re struggling with chronic conditions or simply looking to enhance your health naturally, this centre offers an effective alternative that respects your body’s natural processes.

 

 Naturopathy and Wellness in Bangalore

When it comes to holistic health and wellness, finding the best naturopath in Bangalore can make all the difference in your journey towards optimal well-being. 

With a focus on treating the root cause of ailments rather than just alleviating symptoms, a seasoned professional can guide you through personalized treatment plans that align with your lifestyle.

A seasoned naturopath not only possesses knowledge of natural therapies and treatments, but also comprehends the particulars of each patient's health requirements. 

 You can find some of the most skilled naturopaths in Bangalore who are committed to empowering their patients. They bring years of experience and a deep understanding of various natural healing modalities, ensuring that you receive comprehensive care tailored specifically for you. Explore your options today and take that crucial step towards a healthier future. By choosing an experienced naturopath, you're investing in a partner who will support your health goals with compassion and expertise.  Don't settle for anything less than the best.

 When it comes to holistic treatment, the right fees can make all the difference in making sure that people get high-quality care at a reasonable price. 

Cost-effective treatment options can include various modalities such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, nutritional counseling, and mindfulness practices.

 

It is a common misconception that holistic treatments are prohibitively expensive. In point of fact, a fee structure that is well-organized can make it possible to get access to a variety of treatments that help people heal and feel better overall. 

By choosing practitioners who offer transparent pricing and flexible payment plans, patients can engage in comprehensive care that fits within their budget

Ultimately, understanding the true value of right fees in holistic treatment not only empowers individuals to prioritize their health but also opens doors to sustainable wellness solutions that are both accessible and effective.   

In addition, investing in holistic treatment frequently results in long-term health benefits that reduce the need for additional, more expensive medical procedures in the future. 

 Don’t let financial concerns deter you from exploring these transformative therapies; with careful research and an open mind, you can find cost-effective options tailored just for you.

 

How about Alternative Medicine in Bengaluru?

 When it comes to exploring alternative medicine, one name stands out as a beacon of holistic healing: the best alternative medicine clinic specializing in Ayurveda.  Integrating the mind, body, and spirit, this ancient Indian practice provides a comprehensive wellness strategy. 

At this clinic, you'll find a group of skilled professionals who are committed to meeting your specific needs with individualized care. Ayurveda is more than just a treatment; it is also a way of life that focuses on balancing one's energies and improving one's health as a whole. 

By embracing these principles, patients can experience significant improvements in their well-being whether they are seeking relief from chronic ailments or simply aiming for enhanced vitality.

The best alternative medicine clinic utilizes time-tested techniques such as herbal remedies, dietary recommendations, and therapeutic treatments that harness the power of nature.  

 

Alternative Medicine Clinic in Bangalore

Choosing the right alternative medicine clinic is crucial for your health journey. Look for one that prioritizes patient education and empowerment through Ayurveda’s wisdom. 

Don’t settle for conventional solutions when an enriching experience awaits you at the best alternative medicine clinic specializing in Ayurveda.

 With their guidance, you can unlock the transformative potential of this holistic approach and embark on a path toward lasting wellness.

 

Yoga and Meditation Classes in Bengaluru

Yoga and meditation classes are not just a trend; they are a profound journey into the yogic sciences that can transform your mind, body, and spirit.   

Imagine stepping onto your mat, surrounded by a serene environment designed to foster relaxation and focus.  Each class is an opportunity to delve deeper into ancient techniques that have been refined over centuries.   

The benefits of engaging in these practices extend far beyond physical fitness.  They provide holistic yoga therapy that can reduce stress, increase mental clarity, and improve well-being in general.  

Through guided meditation and mindful movement, participants can cultivate inner peace while also addressing specific health concerns.

 The integration of yogic sciences into daily life empowers individuals to take control of their health in a natural way.   

 

Don’t miss out on the chance to experience this transformative practice; join a class today and unlock the myriad benefits awaiting you on this path of self-discovery. 

 Whether you’re seeking relief from anxiety or looking to enhance your physical strength, yoga treatment provides tailored approaches that cater to individual needs. 

Traditional medicine often comes with a range of unwanted complications, leading individuals to explore alternative therapies that harness the healing power of nature.

  When it comes to healthcare, many Bangalore patients are seeking natural treatments that prioritize their well-being without the risk of side effects.  

 

What Natural Treatment i Bangalore Include?

 Natural treatments in Bengaluru can include herbal remedies, nutritional supplements, and holistic practices such as yoga and meditation.  These options not only aim to alleviate symptoms but also promote overall health and wellness by addressing the root causes of ailments.  Patients in Bangalore can find relief and reduce the risk of pharmaceutical interventions by choosing natural treatments.  

The time has come for Bangaloreans to think about these viable alternatives for a healthier future. 

 Patients can take control of their health journey in a safe and sustainable manner without the burden of side effects that can accompany conventional medications by embracing natural remedies. 

 In addition, these treatments frequently encourage a shift in lifestyle toward healthier behaviors, promoting long-term wellness rather than merely providing temporary relief.

 

 Chronic Disease Treatment in Bangalore by Naturopathy

 When it comes to managing chronic diseases, finding the right treatment clinic can make all the difference in your journey to better health.  The holistic approach and dedication to patient care set the best natural treatment clinic in Bangalore apart. Here, we prioritize understanding the root causes of chronic diseases rather than merely addressing symptoms.  Experienced practitioners of naturopathbengaluru.in utilize a blend of traditional wisdom and modern techniques to create personalized treatment plans tailored to each individual's needs.

 naturopathbengaluru.in at their clinic are committed to empowering patients through education and support so that you can feel informed and involved in your own healing. 

 

Choosing the best natural treatment clinic means opting for a path that embraces your body's innate ability to heal itself an investment in your health that can lead to transformative results.  From herbal remedies to lifestyle modifications, our comprehensive range of natural therapies is designed not only to alleviate symptoms but also to promote long-term wellness.  

 

Lifestyle Based Treatment in Bengaluru

Imagine a world where your daily choices, what you eat, how you move, and even how you manage stress can significantly impact your overall health.   Lifestyle-based treatment is revolutionizing the way we approach health and wellness, and diet-based treatment is at the forefront of this movement.  This isn’t just a dream but a reality that many are beginning to embrace.

Diet-based treatment in Bengaluru emphasizes the importance of nutrition as a cornerstone of health.  By tailoring your diet to meet specific health needs, you can not only prevent chronic diseases but also manage existing conditions more effectively.  For instance, incorporating anti-inflammatory foods can help alleviate symptoms for those suffering from arthritis or other inflammatory disorders.

 

 Moreover, adopting a lifestyle that prioritizes whole foods over processed options has been shown to enhance mental clarity and boost energy levels. With the right guidance, anyone can embark on this transformative journey toward better health through conscious dietary choices.  It's not merely about losing weight but also it's about nourishing your body in ways that promote longevity and vitality.  

 To conclude, embracing lifestyle-based treatments with a focus on diet is not just an option; it’s an imperative for those looking to improve their quality of life.  The benefits given by naturopathbengaluru.in are clear: better physical health, enhanced mental well-being, and an overall improved sense of balance in life.

 

 

 

             

                                               REPORTABLE

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2022

ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.2864 OF 2019

 

J. Vedhasingh …..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

R.M. Govindan & Ors. ..…RESPONDENT(S)

 

J U D G M E N T

 

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

Leave granted.

 

2. The instant appeal has been filed assailing the final order

dated 06.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Madras in

CRL.O.P. No. 6750 of 2017, whereby the High Court allowed the

criminal petition filed by the respondents no.1 to 4 under Section

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) and

quashed proceedings under Sections 120B, 406, 420 and 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) being C.C. No. 33

12022 INSC 825

of 2017 pending before Judicial Magistrate Court No. III,

Coimbatore.

 

3. The brief facts necessary for the instant appeal are that the

appellant herein was working as a Civil Engineer in Saudi Arabia.

On his return back to India in the year 2011, he purchased a site

from respondent no.2 who is the father of respondent no.1 in

Coimbatore. Apart from this, the respondents owned 7 other

house sites in total in V.C.K. Layout, Trichy Road, Coimbatore

City, which all were mortgaged to Tamil Nadu Industrial

Investment Corporation, way back from 12.10.2006. Appellant

contended that the respondents approached and asked him to

invest money for the development of the land of the said 7 sites

and assured that profit shall be divided amongst the appellant

and respondents. Pursuant to it a profitsharing agreement was

executed between the parties. The appellant made the investment

of a sum of Rs.62,32,754/, but neither profit was shared nor

any piece of land was given to the appellant. Consequently, the

appellant asked to repay the amount. Under guise of assurance

of repayment by respondent no.1, the appellant did not lodge

any criminal prosecution as per his request. The respondent no.1

2

 

handed over a cheque dated 09.09.2015 for an amount of

Rs.87,00,000 in lieu of repayment of principal sum and interest.

 

4. On presenting the said cheque to the bank it was

dishonored on account of insufficient funds on 09.09.2015. Being

aggrieved, a demand notice was issued on 30.10.2015 and

complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

(for short “NI Act”) being S.T.C. No.792 of 2015 renumbered as

C.C. No.199 of 2016 on the file of Fast Track Magistrate No.1 of

Coimbatore (for short “138 Proceedings”) was lodged by the

appellant on 07.12.2015. Prior to initiating 138 proceedings, the

appellant lodged a complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C being

CMP No. 5083 of 2015 before Judicial Magistrate No. III

Coimbatore on 30.10.2015. The Magistrate directed respondent

no. 5 to register the FIR but by filing a report dated 29.01.2016,

it was said that no offence is made out against the respondents.

The appellant challenged the same by filing CRL.O.P. No. 6766 of

2016 before the High court of Madras and also prayed for

direction against respondent no.5 to conduct fresh investigation.

The High Court disposed of the same with an observation that

the appellant may raise objection on closure report by way of

3

 

protest petition. In pursuance thereof, the appellant filed a

protest petition being Crl.M.P. No. 3891 of 2016, which was

allowed by the Magistrate vide order dated 24.09.2016 directing

the respondent no. 5 to register the case against the respondent

no. 1 to 4 and to complete the investigation. Thereafter only, the

respondent no.5 registered the case against respondent no.1 to 4

at Crime No.49 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 120B,

406, 420 and 34 of IPC on 01.10.2016, and after investigation,

challan was filed before the competent Magistrate on which

cognizance was taken by him.

 

5. The respondents, being aggrieved by the same, filed

CRL.O.P. No. 6750 of 2017 before the High Court of Madras for

quashment of the aforesaid proceedings. The High Court by the

impugned order allowed the said petition and quashed the

proceedings taking into consideration that proceedings under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act pertaining to the same cause of action

and on the same facts and grounds are pending, prior to the

registration of the present proceedings. It was observed that,

looking to the allegations made in the FIR, only offence under

section 138 of NI Act can be made out and continuance of the

4

 

present proceedings for offences under sections 406, 420, 120B

and 34 of IPC would amount to abuse of process of the Court.

The said order passed by the High Court is assailed by the

appellant in the instant appeal.

 

6. Learned senior counsel Mr. S. Nagamuthu contends that in

the facts of the present case the plea of double jeopardy or bar of

Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. would attract only when the earlier

offence and the later offence is same or have same ingredients.

The identity of the allegations on fact is not relevant, in fact, the

identity of the ingredients of the offence is relevant. The plea

taken by respondent no.1 to 4 that a person who is previously

acquitted cannot be tried for the same offence subsequently,

shall apply only when it is shown that acquittal for the previous

charge would lead to acquittal in the subsequent charge. In an

offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, requirement to prove

mens rea is not necessary although for an offence under Section

420, fraudulent and dishonest intention i.e. mens rea is relevant

to prove. In support of the said contention, reliance has been

placed on the judgment of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v.

State of Gujarat and Anr, (2012) 7 SCC 621. The said

5

 

judgment has also been relied in the case of M/s V.S. Reddy and

Sons v. Muthyala Ramalinga Reddy and Anr. (Crl Appeal No.

1285 of 2015) decided on 28.09.2015. Therefore, urged the

quashment of the proceedings for an offence under Sections 420,

406, 120(B) and 34 IPC as directed by the High Court is wholly

unjustified.

 

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

contends that as per the judgment of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao

v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and Anr, (2011) 2 SCC 703,

this Court has held that if the offences are different and the facts

are the same, the prosecution under Section 420 of the IPC is

barred by virtue of Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. Further reliance

has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of G.

Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of UP and Others, (2000) 2 SCC

636, wherein also the offences under Section 138 of NI Act as

well as the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC were

allegedly committed by the accused of that case. After lodging the

complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, a petition under Section

482 before the High Court was filed for quashment of the

complaint which was dismissed. On filing the special leave

6

 

petition before this Court, it was allowed and the Court directed

that the prosecution under Sections 420 and 406 is not tenable

and quashed.

 

8. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant as well as the respondents who have advanced their

contentions relying upon the judgments of this Court. The

reliance placed by the appellant is on a judgment of

Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra) wherein this Court

has considered various judgments. The relevant portion of the

judgment of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra) is

reproduced as thus:

“35. The learned counsel for the appellant has further

placed reliance on the judgment in G. Sagar

Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC

(Cri) 513] wherein during the pendency of the

proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act,

prosecution under Sections 406/420 IPC had been

launched. This Court quashed the criminal

proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC, observing

that it would amount to the abuse of process of law. In

fact, the issue as to whether the ingredients of both

the offences were same, had neither been raised nor

decided. Therefore, the ratio of that judgment does not

have application on the facts of this case.

7

 

36. Same remained the position so far as the

judgment in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla

Venkateswara Rao [(2011) 2 SCC 703 : (2011) 1 SCC

(Cri) 882 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 547] is concerned. It has

been held therein that once the conviction under

Section 138 of the NI Act has been recorded, the

question of trying the same person under Section 420

IPC or any other provisions of IPC or any other statute

is not permissible being hit by Article 20(2) of the

Constitution and Section 300(1) CrPC.

 

37. Admittedly, the appellant had been tried earlier

for the offences punishable under the provisions of

Section 138 of the NI Act and the case is sub judice

before the High Court. In the instant case, he is

involved under Sections 406/420 read with Section

114 IPC. In the prosecution under Section 138 of the

NI Act, the mens rea i.e. fraudulent or dishonest

intention at the time of issuance of cheque is not

required to be proved. However, in the case under IPC

involved herein, the issue of mens rea may be

relevant. The offence punishable under Section 420

IPC is a serious one as the sentence of 7 years can be

imposed.

 

38. In the case under the NI Act, there is a legal

presumption that the cheque had been issued for

discharging the antecedent liability and that

presumption can be rebutted only by the person who

draws the cheque. Such a requirement is not there in

the offences under IPC. In the case under the NI Act, if

a fine is imposed, it is to be adjusted to meet the

legally enforceable liability. There cannot be such a

requirement in the offences under IPC. The case under

the NI Act can only be initiated by filing a complaint.

However, in a case under IPC such a condition is not

necessary.

8

 

39. There may be some overlapping of facts in both

the cases but the ingredients of the offences are

entirely different. Thus, the subsequent case is not

barred by any of the aforesaid statutory provisions.

40. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is

accordingly dismissed.”

On perusal of the same, it is clear that the judgment of G. Sagar

Suri (supra) has been considered but because the issue

regarding the ingredient of both offences were same was not

raised or decided, it has been said that the ratio of that judgment

does not have application in the facts of the case. Similarly, the

judgment of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra) has also been

considered but distinguished on fact while observing that when a

conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act has been recorded, the

prosecution to try the same person under Section 420 of the IPC

is not permissible as per Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. The judgment

of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra) has been relied in

the case of M/s. V.S. Reddy and Sons (supra).

 

9. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the

judgment of G. Sagar Suri (supra) and contended that the said

9

 

issue has been settled more than two decades prior. The relevant

paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced as thus:

“13. In the circumstances of the case in hand the

conclusion is inescapable that invoking the jurisdiction

of a criminal court for allegedly having committed

offences under Sections 406/420 IPC by the

appellants is certainly an abuse of the process of law.

In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the

complainant it is now admitted that none of the two

appellants is a Director of Ganga Automobiles Ltd.

Only in respect of the first appellant it is stated that he

is the authorised signatory of that Company and that

in fact he had signed the cheques which were

returned dishonoured. Apart from making the omnibus

statement that the first appellant with dishonest

intentions and misrepresentations got a loan of Rs

50,00,000 from the complainant Company for Ganga

Automobiles Ltd. there is nothing said as to what were

those misrepresentations and how the complainant

Company was duped. The only part attributed to the

second appellant is that the first appellant along with

Ashwani Suri, Managing Director and Mukender

Singh, Director approached the complainant in June

1996 and had represented that they and Shalini Suri,

Shama Suri (Appellant 2), Charanjit Singh and M.L.

Kampani were the Directors of Ganga Automobiles

Ltd. There is nothing stated in the counteraffidavit

about the role, if any, played by the second appellant.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act has already been filed by the

complainant. There is no allegation of any corrupt

practice by any of the accused as if they duped the

Finance Company in parting with the amount of Rs

50,00,000. As normally understood, the business of a

finance company is to invite deposits, pay interest on

that and also to give loans and earn interest. A

finance company also advances shortterm loans. In

10

 

that case it is essentially a commercial transaction.

After the first two cheques were dishonoured two

cheques were again issued, which again were

dishonoured resulting in filing of complaint under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. None of

the respondents has been able to explain as to why

offences under Sections 406/420 IPC were not added

in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and why resort was had

to filing of a separate first information report. A certain

motive has been attributed to the investigating officer

but we think we need not go into that. There is also no

answer as to why the investigation against the three

other Directors was still stated to be pending when the

same role is assigned to all the accused. In the FIR it

is Sukhvinder Singh, who first approached the

complainant, but later it is Mukender Singh. There is

no answer as to why there are two different names.

As to who are the Directors of Ganga Automobiles Ltd.

could have been easily found by the complainant after

going through the records of the Registrar of

Companies and also about its status. As noted above,

in the subsequent statement by the complainant he

does not assign any role to the first appellant. The

allegation that in the first instance three persons

contacted the complainant Company, who told the

complainant of other Directors with whom the

complainant conversed on telephone appears to be

rather improbable.

 

14. We agree with the submission of the appellants

that the whole attempt of the complainant is evidently

to rope in all the members of the family particularly

those who are the parents of the Managing Director of

Ganga Automobiles Ltd. in the instant criminal case

without regard to their role or participation in the

alleged offences with the sole purpose of getting the

loan due to the Finance Company by browbeating and

tyrannising the appellants with criminal prosecution.

11

 

A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending against

the appellants and other accused. They would suffer

the consequences if offence under Section 138 is

proved against them. In any case there is no occasion

for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under

Sections 406/420 IPC and in his doing so it is clearly

an abuse of the process of law and prosecution

against the appellants for those offences is liable to be

quashed, which we do.

15. The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the

High Court dated 651999 is set aside and

prosecution of the appellants under Sections 406/420

IPC in Criminal Case No. 674 of 1997 (now Criminal

Case No. 6054 of 1998) and pending in the Court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad is quashed.”

 

10. Similarly in the case of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra)

this Court reaffirmed the view taken in the said case. The relevant

paragraphs are reproduced as thus:

“4. It may be noticed that there is a difference

between the language used in Article 20(2) of the

Constitution of India and Section 300(1) CrPC. Article

20(2) states:

“20. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished

for the same offence more than once.”

On the other hand, Section 300(1) CrPC states:

“300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be

tried for same offence.—(1) 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

12

 

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 subsection (1) of

Section 221, or for which he might have been

convicted under subsection (2) thereof.”

5. Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) CrPC is

wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. While

Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that “no

person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same

offence more than once”, Section 300(1) CrPC states

that no one can be tried and convicted for the same

offence or even for a different offence but on the same

facts.

6. In the present case, although the offences are

different but the facts are the same. Hence, Section

300(1) CrPC applies. Consequently, the prosecution

under Section 420 IPC was barred by Section 300(1)

CrPC.”

 

11. In that case, on similar set of allegations, cognizance under

Section 138 of NI Act on filing a private complaint was taken and

accused were tried, while in other complaint it is alleged that the

offence under Sections 406 and 420 is also made out, however, as

directed by Court separate prosecution was lodged. On filing the

quash petition, this Court held that on the same set of allegations

two different offences i.e., under NI Act and IPC cannot be

proceeded with and the proceedings under Sections 420 and 406

of IPC is liable to be quashed.

13

 

12. On perusal of the judgment of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai

Patel (supra) relied in the case of M/S. V.S. Reddy and Sons

(supra) by the appellant and the judgments relied upon by the

respondents in the case of G. Sagar Suri (supra) and Kolla

Veera Raghav Rao (supra) as afore quoted, the facts and the

allegations were similar and that too the prosecution for the

offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and, under Sections 406

and 420 of the IPC were also similar. In the judgment of

Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra) 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

(supra) and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra), 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. It is to observe that in the case of

14

 

Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra) the judgments of G.

Sagar Suri (supra) and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra) 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.

It is relevant to note here that the judgments cited by both the

parties are rendered by benches having the strength of two

Judges. In our considered view, the bench of this Court in the

case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra) followed in

M/s. V.S. Reddy and Sons (supra) has taken a different view

from the previous judgments of G. Sagar Suri (supra) and Kolla

Veera Raghav Rao (supra) rendered by the bench of the same

strength. The view taken in both the cases are conflicting to each

other. Needles to observe that 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. In this regard the judgment

in District Manager, APSRTC, Vijaywada v. K. Sivaji, (2001)

2 SCC 135, Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P., 2002 AIR SCW

15

 

1573 can be profitably referred whereby it is observed that

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. In

our view, the aforesaid judgments cited by the respective parties

are conflicting, however, to avoid any further confusion and to

maintain consistency, we deem it 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 (supra) and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra) lay down the

correct law?

or

The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai

Patel (supra) as followed in M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons (supra)

which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct

proposition of law?

16

 

(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?

 

13. In view of the above discussion, in our view, the judgments

relied by learned counsel for both the parties are in conflict with

each other on the legal issue. Therefore, the above questions of

law have been formulated for answer by a larger bench for

decision. In such circumstances, we request the Registry to place

the file before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for orders.

 

..………….……………….J.

(S. ABDUL NAZEER)

……...……………………J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 11, 2022.

17