Double Jeopardy 11

DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from

being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts,
following a valid acquittal or conviction. Article 20 has taken care to safeguard
the rights of persons accused of crimes. Persons here mean the citizens, non-
citizens as well as corporations. This article cannot be suspended even during
an emergency in operation under article 359. Article 20 also constitutes the
limitation on the legislative powers of the Union and State legislatures.
Article 20(2) supports the relevant provision present in the Constitution

of India which states that “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the
same offence more than once”. The objective of this article is to avoid
harassment, which must be caused for successive criminal proceedings, where
the person has committed only one crime. There is a law maxim related to this
– nemo debet bis vexari. This means that no man shall be put twice in peril for
the same offence.
Case Laws
1. Leo Roy vs Superintendent District Jail

1958 AIR 119 1958 SCR 822
The Court held: if the offences are distinct the rule of Double Jeopardy
will not apply. Thus, where a person was prosecuted and punished under
sea customs act, and was later on prosecuted under the Indian Penal
Code for criminal conspiracy, it was held that second prosecution was
not barred since it was not for the same offence.
2. Venkataraman v. Union of India,
1954 AIR 375, 1954 SCR 1150
An enquiry was made before the enquiry commissioner on the appellant

under the Public Service Enquiry Act, 1960 & as a result, he was dismissed
from the service. He was later on, charged for committed the offence
under Indian Penal Code & the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court
held that the proceeding held by the enquiry commissioner was only a
mere enquiry & did not amount to a prosecution for an offence. Hence,
the second prosecution did not attract the doctrine of Double Jeopardy or
protection guaranteed under Fundamental Right Article 20 (2).
3. Kolla Veera Raghav Rao vs Gorantla Venkateswara Rao And

Anr
SC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1160 OF 2006
The Court held that Section 300(1) CrPC is wider in its scope than Article 20(2)
of the Constitution. While Article 20(2) of the Constitution only says that “no
person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than
once”, Section 300(1) Cr.PC states that no one can be tried and convicted for
the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts.
4. Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh And Another vs The State Of

Vindhya Pradesh
1953 AIR 394, 1953 SCR 1188
Supreme court held that what is forbidden under article 20 is only
conviction or sentence under an ex post facto law and not the trial
thereof. It cannot be reasonably urged that the prohibition of
double jeopardy applies only when both the instances [two
different things for which accused was charged] therefore arise
after the Constitution. Article 20 does not have retrospective effects
but the laws passed which have retrospective effect should be
confined to article 20. Laws passed even when the constitution was
not in existence, does not make the constitutional sovereignty
ineffective.
5. Assistant Collector Of Customs vs U.L.R. Malwani And
Anr
1970 AIR 962, 1969 SCR (2) 438
The Supreme Court had made a very important point in respect to article
20(2) of Constitution of India. In this case the Respondent was charged for
smuggling foreign goods after Enquiry was held by Customs authorities,
smuggled goods were seized and confiscated. Also, Respondent was
penalised with penalty.
Appellant then filed a petition against the respondent. Respondents was held
guilty by the magistrate and he was given no relief even at the high court. In
the revision petition before the Supreme Court under section 403 of Cr.PC,
the respondent pleaded defence under article 20(2) of Indian constitution for
double jeopardy as he was already had penalised by the customs authorities.
One of the main issues before the court was whether that prosecution is
barred under Art. 20(2) of the Constitution which says that no person shall
be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
But the court held that it is necessary for an accused person to establish
before the court that he had been tried by a “court of competent jurisdiction”
for an offence and he was convicted or acquitted of that offence and the said
conviction or acquittal is in force.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the proceeding before the Sea
Customs authorities was not a “prosecution” and the order for confiscation
was not a “punishment” inflicted by a Court or judicial tribunal within the
meaning of Art. 20(2) of the Constitution and hence his subsequent
prosecution was not barred.

Double Jeopardy 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Double Jeopardy 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Double Jeopardy 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from

Article 20(2) supports the relevant provision present in the Constitution

1. Leo Roy vs Superintendent District Jail

An enquiry was made before the enquiry commissioner on the appellant

3. Kolla Veera Raghav Rao vs Gorantla Venkateswara Rao And

SC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1160 OF 2006

4. Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh And Another vs The State Of

You might also like