Negotiable Instruments

• Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice provides for the issuance of copies to parties. It stipulates that copies of any portion of the record of a criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned upon payment of the proper stamp duty and the authorized copying fee.
• In Subramanian v. State through the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Cuddalore, Pratap Singh, J., held that a docket entry is also a portion of the record of a criminal case and must be furnished to a party upon payment of the requisite stamp duty and authorized copying fee.
• Similarly, M. Karpagavinayagam, J., in Ramesh v. A. Ramanujan, ruled that an accused is entitled to a copy of the complaint as soon as they receive the summons.
• Following these decisions, B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J., in V.G.K. Murthy v. Vikas Plastic Electro Chemical Pvt. Ltd., observed that copies of any portion of the record must be provided to the accused as mandated under Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The trial court cannot refuse to accept a copy application and is bound to comply with Rule 339 regarding the provision of copies to parties.

Double Jeopardy

• Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is based on the principle that no person shall face jeopardy to their life or liberty more than once for the same offence on the same set of facts. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India is founded on the same principle.
• Section 300, Cr.P.C., incorporates, within narrow limits, the English common law principles of autrefois convict and autrefois acquit. However, Section 300(2), Cr.P.C., specifies that if the offences are distinct, the rule of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution does not apply.
• In M/s. Opts Marketing (P) Limited and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the question of quashing proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C., in cases involving offences under Section 420, IPC, and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held:

  "Even after the introduction of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, prosecution under Section 420, IPC, is maintainable in cases of dishonour of cheques or post-dated cheques issued as payment for goods purchased, loans taken, or in discharge of antecedent debts, provided the charge-sheet alleges that the accused had a dishonest intention not to pay even at the time of issuance of the cheque. The act of issuing the cheque, which was dishonoured, must also have caused harm to the complainant's mind, body, or reputation. A private complaint or FIR alleging an offence under Section 420, IPC, for dishonour of cheques or post-dated cheques cannot be quashed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., if the complaint's averments show that the accused acted with dishonest intent and issued the dishonoured cheque, causing such harm."

• In K.S. Anto v. Union of India, the court examined Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. and held:

  "The bar under Article 20(2) that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once is not violated by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. An act or omission may constitute more than one offence under different provisions. This does not offend Article 20(2). What is prohibited under Article 20(2) is a second prosecution and conviction for the same offence. In other words, only double jeopardy is barred."

• 998 (1) LW (Crl) 1
• 01 (1) CTC 24
• Ramaiah v. R. Sudhakara Naidu, 2006 Cr LJ 3581: (2006) 420