VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

540 DECISION - 249
prosecution nor second punishment. Re-trial is the continuance of
the same prosecution. It is not a fresh trial. Acquittal in certain
circumstances, as in the instant case, takes place on account of
technical reasons, and it may be very desirable in the circumstances
of a particular case that the person be prosecuted after removing
those technical defects in procedure.
The High Court observed that in Baijnath Prasad Tripathi
vs. State of Bhopal, AIR 1957 SC 494, the Supreme Court held that
the whole basis of sec. 403(1) Cr.P.C., 1898 (corresponding to sec.
300(1) Cr.P.C. 1973) is that the first trial should have been before the
court competent to hear and determine the case and to record a
verdict of conviction or acquittal. If the court is not so competent, as
where the required sanction under sec. 6 of P.C. Act, 1947
(corresponding to sec. 19 of P.C. Act, 1988) for the prosecution was
not obtained, the whole trial is null and void, it cannot be said that
there was any conviction or acquittal in force within the meaning of
sec. 300 of the Cr.P.C. Such a trial does not bar a subsequent trial
of the accused under the P.C. Act read with sec. 161 of the Penal
Code after obtaining proper sanction. The earlier proceedings being
null and void, the accused cannot be said to have been prosecuted
and punished for the same offence more than once. Art. 20(2) of the
Constitution has no application.
(249)
(A) Court jurisdiction
Court not to substitute its finding on reappraisal of
evidence recorded in departmental proceedings.
(B) Evidence — retracted statement
Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority can
rely on retracted statement or statement resiled.
(C) Penalty — stipulation of minimum penalty
Provision that, in the absence of special and adequate