Ram lal Jat 27 December 2024

Double jeopardy

SOMEONE LODGE FIR AGAINST ME AND POLICE SUBMITTED CLOSURE REPORT SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE COURT . MY QUERY IS THAT SAME FACT SAME ALLEGATIONS CAN OTHER PERSON ALSO LODGE FIR AGAINST ME AFTER SOME YEARS. CAN I APPROACH COURT WITH DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUND TO DIRECTLY QUASH FIR.

Reply Follow

2 Replies

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 27 December 2024

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence (primarily in common law jurisdictions) that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction

The Supreme Court applied the definition under Section 300(1) of the CrPC and reiterated that no person could be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence other than the one they have already been convicted or acquitted of.

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate ) 27 December 2024

Besides Section 300 CrPC as very well explained by Mr. T Kalsielvan which I agree, the connotation of double jeopardy finds place in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950, which reads as:

20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences

(1) xxxxxxxxx

(2)No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

(3) xxxxxxx

Article 20(2) prohibits a person from being prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. This principle of double jeopardy prevents individuals from being subjected to multiple trials or punishments for the same offense. Once a person has been acquitted or convicted and punished for a particular offense, they cannot be tried or punished again for the same offense.

In the case of Venkataraman v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India established that this provision deals exclusively with Judicial punishments and provides that no person is prosecuted twice by the judicial authorities. The most crucial landmark judgement came in the case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, where the person accused was possessing some amount of gold, which was against lex loci at the time and gold was confiscated by the customs authority. And, later when the person was prosecuted before a criminal court, the court was confronted with the question whether this amounts to Double Jeopardy.

But, the Supreme Court observed that departmental proceedings, i.e. by Customs Authority, in this case, doesn’t amount to trial by a judicial tribunal, thus the proceedings before the criminal court is not barred in this case and the proceedings can go on. In a nutshell Departmental Proceedings are independent of trial by a judicial court or tribunal.

However, the prosecution may happen if the facts are distinct in subsequent proceedings. Same was established by the Supreme Court of India in case of A.A. Mulla v. State of Maharashtra and was observed that; Article 20 (2) would not be attracted in those cases where the facts are distinct in subsequent offence or punishment.