P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are accused in P. R. C. No. 7/2000 and the present Petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in P. R. C. No. 7/2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, S. Kota in vizianagaram District on the ground that no person shall be prosecuted twice for the same offence. ( 2 ) IT is stated that the 2nd respondent, a resident of Jannivalsa Village had alleged that on 6-6-1999 at about 8 p. m. , when she was alone in her house and her husband was away from the house, the petitioners had trespassed into the house of the 2nd respondent and fell her down by catching hold of her hair and the 2nd petitioner attempted to remove the clothes of the 2nd defendant after she fell down and the 2nd respondent raised cries and freed herself from the hands of the petitioners and came out of her house. It was further alleged that the petitioners herein beat her with hands and kicked her in the street and took away her ear studs worth 1/2 tula along with sathamanam weighing 1/2 tula. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent gave a report at Jammi P. S. under Sections 354, 323 and 379 I. P. C. read with Section 34 I. P. C. The S. I. of Police had registered a case and investigated into the offence and it is also stated that the investigation disclosed that the allegations made by the 2nd respondent that the petitioners had taken away gold studs and Mangala Sutram are false. Subsequent thereto, the 2nd respondent had filed a private complaint in C. C. No. 86/ 99 against the petitioners on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, S. Kota for offences alleged to have taken place on 6-6-1999 under Sections 448, 354, 323 and 379 I. P. C. and during the pendency of the case, the case against the 2nd petitioner was dismissed under Section 204 Cr. P. C. It was also stated that the 2nd respondent had examined herself as PW-1 and one m. Papa Rao was examined as PW-2 and the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate. P. C. It was also stated that the 2nd respondent had examined herself as PW-1 and one m. Papa Rao was examined as PW-2 and the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate. S. Kota after examining the evidence on record had acquitted the 1st petitioner on the ground that there is no corroborative evidence and delivered a judgment of acquittal in c. C. No. 86/99 on 6-6-2000. It is further stated that due to political pressure of the 2nd respondent and due to the transfer of the then S. I. who had investigated the case, the police had filed charge sheet in P. R. C. No. 7/ 2000 in Cr. No. 58/99 for the same offence and for the same occurrence though the petitioners were acquired in C. C. No. 86/99 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate. S. Kota. Hence, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted again for the selfsame offences since it will amount to double jeopardy. ( 3 ) SRI Venkataswami Yadav, the learned Counsel representing Sri Kuriti bhaskar Rao, Counsel for the petitioners had drawn my attention to the judgment in c. C. No. 86/99 and also the findings recorded by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, s. Kota at paragraphs 11 to 13. The learned counsel also contended that the incident for which the petitioners were already tried and the incident in the present P. R. C. are one and the same. The learned Counsel also submitted that the judgment in c. C. No. 86/99 became final and despite the same, again the Police had lodged charge sheet which cannot be sustained since it will amount to double jeopardy. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to section 300 Cr. P. C. in this regard. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on The Assistant Collector of customs, Bombay and another v. L. R. Melwani and another, AIR 1970 SC 962 . ( 4 ) SRI M. A. Khadeer, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken me through the charge sheet filed by the police in P. R. C. No. 7/2000 and had contended that inasmuch as final report was not sent to the Court for acceptance, the Police are entitled to file charge sheet in accordance with law. ( 4 ) SRI M. A. Khadeer, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken me through the charge sheet filed by the police in P. R. C. No. 7/2000 and had contended that inasmuch as final report was not sent to the Court for acceptance, the Police are entitled to file charge sheet in accordance with law. The learned Additional Public prosecutor also had drawn my attention to paragraph 3 of the judgment in C. C. 86/99 and had pointed out the case against A-2 was dismissed under Section 204 Cr. P. C. and in view of the same, it cannot be said that the filing of the charge sheet by the police in the present case is either unsustainable or not in accordance with law and hence the learned Additional Public prosecutor further maintained that the further proceedings are to be proceeded with in accordance with law. ( 5 ) SRI Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the 2nd respondent had submitted that the 2nd respondent had given a report to the Police and the same was registered as Crime No. 58/ 99 by Jami P. S. under Sections 354, 323, 379 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and inasmuch as the Police had not taken action she had filed a private complaint under Sections 448, 354, 323 and 379 I. P. C. But however, the learned Magistrate had taken the case on file only under Sections 448, 323 and 506 (2) i. P. C. The learned Counsel also submitted that the name of the 2nd petitioner in the present Criminal Petition is "d. Sanyasi naidu" whereas the second accused shown in C. C. No. 86/99 is "d. Sannibabu". The learned Counsel also had maintained that it is doubtful whether these two persons are one and the same, but however, in fairness the learned Senior Counsel submitted that he has no specific instructions in this regard. The learned Counsel also had pointed out as against the 2nd petitioner, the complaint was only dismissed under section 204 Cr. P. C. for non-payment of process and hence he was not tried by the Court and the 1st petitioner was acquitted on 6-6-2000. The learned Counsel also had pointed out as against the 2nd petitioner, the complaint was only dismissed under section 204 Cr. P. C. for non-payment of process and hence he was not tried by the Court and the 1st petitioner was acquitted on 6-6-2000. The learned Senior Counsel also had taken me through the contents of the charge sheet and had submitted that in the charge sheet itself it was specifically mentioned that LW-6 did not send final report or the copy of the refer notice to the Court for acceptance. It was further submitted that subsequent thereto the investigating Officer having satisfied that there is sufficient material had filed the charge sheet under Section 354, 452, 323 read with Section 34 I. P. C. The learned counsel also submitted that as far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, even if it is to be taken that both these persons are one and the same, the 2nd petitioner was not tried and the complaint was dismissed only for non-payment of process under Section 204 cr. P. C. The learned Counsel also submitted that in view of A. P. Amendment 23 of 1992 which came into force with effect from 15-2-1992, the offence under Section 354 i. P. C. is triable by a Court of Sessions and hence the Judicial First Class Magistrate is not competent to try the said offence. Hence, in view of sub-section (4) of Section 300 cr. P. C. , the action of the Police in laying the charge sheet is definitely in accordance with law. No doubt, as far as the other offences are concerned, for certain offences the 1st petitioner was tried and an order of acquittal was made in C. C. No. 86/99. ( 6 ) HEARD Sri Venkataswami Yadav, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri MA. Khadeer and also the learned Senior Counsel sri Padmanabha Reddy and perused the material available on record. ( 7 ) THE facts of the case already had been narrated above. As can be seen from the record in C. C. No. 86/99, a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st petitioner is shown as the 1st accused and the 2nd accused is one D. Sannibabu and the present 2nd petitioner in the Criminal petition is D. Sanyasi Naidu. As can be seen from the record in C. C. No. 86/99, a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st petitioner is shown as the 1st accused and the 2nd accused is one D. Sannibabu and the present 2nd petitioner in the Criminal petition is D. Sanyasi Naidu. It is no doubt true that there is some controversy relating to his identity; but however the Counsel proceeded as if the 2nd accused in both the proceedings is one and the same. As can be seen from the judgment in C. C. No. 86/ 99 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate, S. Kota, during the pendency of the case, the case against the 2nd accused was dismissed under Section 204 Cr. P. C. No doubt after recording the evidence, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate had found the 1st petitioner herein - 1st accused not guilty for the offences under sections 448, 323 and 506 (2) I. P. C. and acquitted him under Section 248 (1) Cr. P. C. In the charge sheet itself it is mentioned that the final report or the copy of the refer notice had not been sent to Court for acceptance and hence inasmuch as the investigation had disclosed an offence under Section 354 I. P. C. also apart from the other offences, the Police had laid the charge sheet. ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that as far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the prior C. C. also was dismissed under Section 204 Cr. P. C. only. It is also pertinent to note that even the 1st petitioner was not tried for offences under sections 354 and 452 I. P. C. in the prior c. C. referred to supra. Section 300 Cr. P. C. reads as hereunder: 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 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 sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof. (2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of Section 220. (3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted. (4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged. (5) A person discharged under Section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other court to which the first mentioned Court is subordinate. (6) Nothing in this Section shall affect the provisions of Section 26 of the General clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1987) or of Section 188 of this Code. EXPLANATION :the dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused is not an acquittal for the purposes of this Section. It is no doubt true that sub-section (1) of section 300 Cr. P. C. , specifies that 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 the conviction or acquittal remains in force not liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence. Sub-section (1) of Section 300 cr. P. C. is the general provision. Sub-section (1) of Section 300 cr. P. C. is the general provision. However, sub-section (4) specifically says that a person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction be subsequently charged with and tried for any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he was subsequently charged. Much stress was laid on the language employed in sub-section (4) of section 300 Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) IN the present case on hand, it is not in dispute that Section 354 I. P. C. is an offence triable by a Court of Sessions by virtue of A. P. Amendment 3 of 1992. It is needless to say that a Judicial First Class magistrate is not competent to try the said offence. Apart from this aspect of the matter, as already observed supra, as against the 2nd petitioner, the prior private complaint was dismissed under Section 204 Cr. P. C. only. Hence, in the light of the provision sub-section (4) Section 300 Cr. P. C. which is an exception to the general rule. Subsection (1) of Section 300 Cr. P. C. , it cannot be said that the action of the Police in laying down the charge sheet is either illegal or unsustainable. It is also pertinent to note that the Police had not sent the final report or refer notice to the Court for acceptance. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said decision, it was held that in order to get the benefit under Section 403 Cr. P. C. , 1898, or article 22 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary for an accused person to establish that he had been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and he is convicted or acquitted of that offence and the said conviction or acquittal is in force and if that much is established, then only the accused is not liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Section 236 cr. P. C. or for which he might have been convicted under Section 273 Cr. P. C. ( 10 ) HENCE, viewed from any angle, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief prayed for in the Criminal Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.