Criminal Procedure — Double jeopardy / autrefois acquit / Section 300 CrPC & Article 20(2) Constitution — Principle. — A person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction and acquitted or convicted shall not, while such acquittal/conviction remains in force, be tried again for the same offence. To attract Article 20(2) / Section 300 CrPC, the ingredients of the earlier offence and the subsequent offence must be identical; identity of allegations is not the test. (Paras 5–6, 24)
-
Scope of Section 26 General Clauses Act / Section 71 IPC — Application. — Where an act constitutes offences under two or more enactments, the offender may be prosecuted under any such enactment but shall not be punished twice for the same offence. The test is identity of ingredients of offences, not mere overlap of facts or motive. (Paras 5, 10, 24)
-
Adjudication by non-judicial/administrative authority not necessarily a “trial” for Article 20(2). — Proceedings before administrative/adjudicatory authorities (e.g., customs collectors, adjudicating authorities) which are not criminal trials by a competent court do not, as a rule, attract double jeopardy. (Paras 14–15)
-
Distinct offences — No bar to second prosecution. — Where the ingredients of two offences are different in sense, import and content, prosecution for the second offence is not barred even if facts overlap. (Paras 8–11, 16–18)
-
Remedial exceptions / finality. — If an earlier adjudication/trial has attained finality by way of conviction/acquittal on merits such that it necessarily involves acquittal/conviction of the latter charge, then reliance on autrefois acquit/convict may succeed; but pending or non-final proceedings ordinarily do not. (Paras 25–26)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND — concise
• Respondent 2 instituted a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act (cheque dishonour). Later an FIR/complaint under Sections 406/420 IPC read with Section 114 IPC (criminal breach of trust/cheating etc.) was lodged.
• The appellant (Sangeetaben) was tried under Section 138 N.I. Act and initially convicted; on appeal she was acquitted by the district judge (and that acquittal was under challenge in a further appeal pending before the High Court). Meanwhile, criminal proceedings under IPC were launched.
• The appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the IPC proceedings on ground of double jeopardy; the High Court dismissed the petition. The matter reached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES PRESENTED
-
Whether prosecution under IPC (Sections 406/420/114) is barred by Article 20(2)/Section 300 CrPC or Section 26 General Clauses Act where proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act had earlier been instituted and decided (conviction followed by acquittal on appeal which itself was under further challenge).
-
What is the correct test to determine whether the two proceedings constitute the “same offence”?
RATIO / LEGAL PRINCIPLES (as held by the Bench)
-
Test for identity of offence: The correct test is identity of ingredients of the offences, not identity of the factual allegations. If the ingredients are not identical, the bar of Article 20(2) / Section 300 CrPC does not apply. (Paras 5–6, 24)
-
Adjudicatory/administrative proceedings distinct from criminal trial: Proceedings before authorities not being courts of competent jurisdiction for criminal trials do not themselves attract double jeopardy (Maqbool Hussain; Melwani). (Paras 14–15)
-
Overlap of facts insufficient: Overlap of facts or motive does not make two offences identical. Motive is not an ingredient of offence. Thus, the existence of overlapping allegations does not by itself amount to same offence. (Paras 10–13, 24)
-
Finality matters: Where an earlier conviction/acquittal has become final and necessarily covers the essence of the later charge, autrefois acquit/convict may operate. But where earlier proceedings are pending or the offences are different in ingredients, the bar cannot be invoked. (Paras 25–26)
-
Application to facts: The offence under Section 138 N.I. Act (a statutory presumption and remedy for cheque dishonour) is different in ingredients, nature and proof from offences under Sections 406/420 IPC; mens rea and elements differ. Hence the subsequent IPC prosecution was not barred. (Paras 27–28)
ANALYSIS
-
Precedents surveyed: The Bench reviewed and applied settled authorities (Maqbool Hussain; S.L. Apte; A.A. Mulla; Kokkiligada Meeraiah; V.K. Agarwal; Roshan Lal; Kharkan; Bhagwan Swarup) to restate the requirement that identity of ingredients is the decisive test.
-
Distinction of statutory schemes: Section 138 N.I. Act is a special statutory remedy for dishonoured cheques with its own presumption (liability for antecedent debt) and different proof burdens. By contrast, offences under IPC (cheating, criminal breach of trust) demand proof of dishonest intention; the ingredients do not match.
-
Pending nature of earlier proceedings: The appeal from the judgment in the N.I. Act matter was pending before the High Court; therefore the N.I. Act matter had not attained finality. Even where earlier proceedings were decided, the nature of that decision (e.g., on technicality vs merits) is material to whether double jeopardy attaches. (Paras 25–26)
-
Doctrine of issue-estoppel clarified: The Court reiterated that where an issue of fact has been decided previously by a competent court, that finding may constitute issue-estoppel on that fact in a later trial, but it does not prohibit prosecution for a distinct offence arising from the same transaction. (Para 15)
-
Application to the present facts: Given the differences in ingredients and the pendency/non-finality of the N.I. Act appeal, the bar of double jeopardy could not be invoked to quash the IPC prosecution. (Paras 27–28)
CONCLUSION / DISPOSITION
• Appeal dismissed. IPC proceedings (Sections 406/420/114) are not barred by Article 20(2) / Section 300 CrPC or Section 26 General Clauses Act because the ingredients of the offences are different from those under Section 138 N.I. Act; overlap of facts does not suffice. The earlier N.I. Act proceedings were not a bar, particularly as they were not final. (Paras 24–28)
No comments:
Post a Comment