legal maxim

Dear Diya,

The maxim Nemo debet bis vexari (pro una et eadem causa) literally means “no one shall be vexed for the same cause”, which basically means that when a person has already been punished for a matter, they cannot be tried for the same matter again. In Criminal Law, we call it the rule against double jeopardy discussed in the Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It eliminates the question of punishing the convict twice for the same crime. The Civil Law says that no person should be tried for the same offence more than once. The basis for this maxim comes from the rule of the Common Law, which states the same thing. Section 26 of the General Clause Act also says that if a person has been accused for the same offence twice, the trial shall only take place once. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution which comes under our fundamental rights also states that the same person cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same matter twice. This maxim also forms the principal basis behind the maxim of “Res Judicata”. While applying this maxim, one must keep in mind that the phrase “same matter” means that the facts of the previous trial must be sufficient to prove conviction in the subsequent case. If the prosecution uses the same facts for 2 trials, it does not attract the provisions of Nemo debet bis vexari (pro una et eadem causa).

S A Venkataraman v. Union of India

The Court held that it should be noted here that, the presence of the word “and” between “prosecuted” and “punished” in Article 20(2) means that for any case to be taken under this maxim, both the conditions have to be present, i.e. the accused must have been prosecuted and also punished for that crime.

Maqbool Hussain v. the State of Bombay

In this case, Maqbool Hussain, who was a citizen of India did not declare that he had imported gold with his possession. Later he was found with 107.2 kg of gold, which was confiscated by the Airport authorities and action was taken against him. When this matter wad brought before the Court, the question was whether or not this constituted a case under the provisions of Nemo debet bis vexari (pro una et eadem causa). The Court finally held that the actions taken by the airport authorities does not constitute as a prosecution and thus Article 20(2) was not violated by the trial which was taking place before the court.

I hope your query was solved.