judgment and then proceed to record the evidence of the prosecution in the other case. Thereafter he shall praeeeh ,a slraultaaeoasl, dispose of the eases by hyp separate jadgrveats tahlpg care that the iadgroea, la one case Is not based on the eyldeoce recarded la the ether case, la Kamnshaajs case, supra, Ms Coart hod accaslaa to deal with a situation as the present, where two cases exclusiveiy triable by the Court of Sessions, one instituted on a police report under Section 173 of the Code and the other initiated on a criminal complaint. arose out of the same transaction. The Court observed that to obviate the risk of two courts coming to conflicting findings, it was desirable that the two cases should be tried separately but by the same court. The High Court was largely influenced in uphoiding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge by the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by Artid^jom of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Code which provides that no person shail be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. If there is no punishment for the offence as a result of the prosecution. Sub-clause (2) of Article 20 has no application. The constitutional right HborameeP by ArsicleJSm bgalas, bauble leoparPy cap ,m be reseryeP If ,be Mb cases ore tried together but not consolidated I. e. the evidence be recorded separateiy in both cases and they be disposed of simultaneously. Further, the second prosecution must be for the 'same offence'. If the offences are distinct, there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy being applicable."
