[ad_1]
Definition and Origin
Double jeopardy is based on the Latin maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” which means “no one ought to be vexed twice for one and the same cause”. The doctrine traces its origin to English common law and American jurisprudence, ensuring that no person can be prosecuted and punished twice for the same offense.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution
Article 20(2) states that “no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. This constitutional provision primarily protects individuals who have been convicted (autrefois convict) rather than those who have been acquitted.
Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 300 of the CrPC provides broader protection than Article 20(2) by covering both previous acquittal (autrefois acquit) and conviction (autrefois convict). It prohibits a second trial for the same offense regardless of whether the first trial resulted in acquittal or conviction.
Key Differences Between Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC
While both provisions protect against double jeopardy, they differ in scope:
-
Article 20(2): Limited protection – applies only when a person has been both prosecuted and punished (convicted).
-
Section 300 CrPC: Wider scope – covers both acquittal and conviction, preventing second trials even without punishment.
Conditions for Applicability
For double jeopardy protection to apply, the following conditions must be satisfied:
-
Criminal Charge: The individual must be charged with a criminal offense as defined under law
-
Judicial Proceedings: There must be formal proceedings before a competent court or judicial tribunal
-
Prior Prosecution: The accused must have undergone prosecution in the earlier case
-
Same Offense: The subsequent prosecution must be for an identical offense with the same ingredients
Major Exceptions to Double Jeopardy
1) Civil Proceedings
Double jeopardy protection applies only to criminal cases and cannot be invoked in civil proceedings. A person can face both civil and criminal liability for the same act – for example, in a drunk driving case resulting in death, the accused can be prosecuted criminally and also sued civilly for damages.
2) Separate and Distinct Offenses
When the same set of facts constitutes different offenses under different laws with distinct ingredients, double jeopardy is not applicable. As established in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988), if there are two distinct offenses with different ingredients under separate enactments, double punishment is not barred.
3) Administrative/Departmental Proceedings
Double jeopardy does not apply to administrative or departmental proceedings. In Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953), the Supreme Court held that customs penalties do not constitute “prosecution and punishment” under Article 20(2). Similarly, in Bhagwan Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner Sitapur (1962), departmental proceedings were held to be distinct from criminal prosecution.
4) Continuing Offenses
For continuing offenses, each day the offense is committed is considered a separate crime, allowing separate punishment for each instance without violating double jeopardy.
5) Incomplete Jeopardy
The protection applies only when jeopardy has both begun and ended. In State of Mizoram vs. Dr. C. Sangnghina (2018), the Supreme Court held that dismissal of a case before trial commencement due to lack of sanction does not invoke double jeopardy protection.
6) Reversal on Appeal
If an acquittal is reversed by a higher court on appeal, a new trial can be conducted for the same offense.
Different Jurisdictions
While Section 300(5) provides some protection for offenses tried in foreign courts, this protection is limited and may not apply when there’s no reciprocity.
The principle of double jeopardy thus balances protecting individual rights against arbitrary state action while ensuring that justice is not compromised through its various carefully crafted exceptions.
[ad_2]
Source link