VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

212 DECISION - 17
The Supreme Court further held that sec. 403(1) Cr.P.C.,
1898 (corresponding to sec. 300(1) Cr.P.C., 1973) has no application
to the facts of the present case, where there was only one trial for
several offences, of some of which the accused person was acquitted
while being convicted of one. Thus where the accused was tried
under sec. 5(2) of P.C.Act and sec. 409 IPC but was acquitted of the
offence under P.C.Act, there is no bar to his conviction under sec.
409 IPC.
The Supreme Court further held that Art. 20 of the
Constitution of India cannot apply because the accused was not
prosecuted after he had already been tried and acquitted for the same
offence in an earlier trial and, therefore, the well-known maxim “Nemo
debet bis vexari, si constat curice quod sit pro una et eadem causa”
(No man shall be twice punished, if it appears to the court that it is for
one and the same cause)” embodied in Art. 20 cannot apply.
(17)
(A) Principles of natural justice — guidelines
Principles of Natural Justice in departmental inquiries
summarised.
(B) Evidence Act — applicability of
Evidence Act not applicable in Departmental
Inquiries. If rules of natural justice are observed,
decisions are not liable to be impeached for not
following provisions of Evidence Act.
(C) Witnesses — examination of
Inquiry Officer putting questions to witnesses, not
violative.
Union of India vs. T. R. Varma,
AIR 1957 SC 882
The respondent, an Assistant Controller in the Commerce
Ministry, was charged with aiding and abetting the attempt of a private
person to bribe another Government servant. Shri Bhan had offered