DOUBLE JEOPARDY: CONCEPT AND ANALYSIS
Double Jeopardy means that a person cannot be tried or punished for the same offence more than once. Once a person has been either acquitted or convicted for a particular crime, they cannot be tried again for that same crime.
It is based on the principle that a person’s guilt or innocence has been determined in court; they cannot be subjected to another trial for the same offence.
This article explores the origins and evolution of Double Jeopardy laws in India and landmark judgments that have shaped its interpretation. The concept of double jeopardy prevents individuals from being unfairly subjected to multiple prosecutions for the same offence.
INTRODUCTION:
The criminal justice system aims to punish criminals while also reforming them. Ensuring that individuals are not subjected to unnecessary punishment or repeated prosecutions is necessary.
The concept of double jeopardy is a fundamental right that prohibits a person from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This principle, known as "double jeopardy,"
Simply put, the principle of autrefois convict [2] or double jeopardy means that a person cannot be subjected to multiple trials or punishments for the same crime.
HISTORY:
The concept of double jeopardy originates from the Latin phrase "Nemo Debet bis Vexari," which means that a person should not be tried twice for the same offence. This principle can also be found in statutes like Section 26 of the General Clause Act and Section 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1898.
According to Section 26, if an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more laws, the offender can be prosecuted and punished under any of those laws but cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
Also, the doctrine of double jeopardy is defined in Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This principle has undergone evolution.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY LAWS IN INDIA
DOUBLE JEOPARDY: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Part III of the Indian Constitution speaks about fundamental rights available to people within the territory of India. Under these basic rights, Art 20(2) states, “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”
The ingredients of the section are :
1. The person must have committed an act punishable by law.
2. a legal proceeding must be before a competent court or judicial tribunal. Proceedings before departmental or administrative authorities are excluded from this.
Under English law, persons acquitted or convicted are prevented from a similar proceeding under the principle. However, Indian law relates only to persons who were convicted.
However, the doctrine’s scope is broader under S. 300 of the CRPC.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE [CrPC]
Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) also provides for the doctrine of double jeopardy.
Clause (1):
If a person is tried and either acquitted or convicted for an offence, they cannot be tried again for the same offence based on the same set of facts. This also applies to related charges under specific subsections.
Clause (2):
If a person is acquitted or convicted for one offence, they cannot be prosecuted for other charges in a separate trial without the state government’s consent.
Clause (3):
A convict can only be retried if new facts emerge that were unknown during the first trial and related to the original offence.
Clause (4):
If a court is incompetent to try a subsequent offence that arises from the original offence, the first trial will not prevent a competent court from trying the subsequent offence.
Clause (5):
If a person is discharged from a case under Section 258 of the CrPC, they cannot be tried again for the same offence without the court’s consent.
Clause (6):
This clause states that Section 300 of the CrPC does not override Section 26 of the General Clause Act, which deals with offences under multiple enactments. If an offence falls under multiple enactments, the accused can be charged under either but cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
Section 300 of the CrPC ensures that individuals cannot be unfairly tried or punished multiple times for the same offence, subject to certain exceptions and conditions.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS:
In the case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, Maqbool Hussain was found with gold upon arriving in India from abroad, which he failed to declare to customs authorities. The gold was confiscated, and he was later prosecuted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The question arose of whether the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution could be invoked.
The Supreme Court held that the proceedings before customs authorities did not constitute a prosecution of Hussain, and the penalty imposed by them did not amount to punishment as per Article 20(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, the subsequent prosecution in criminal court did not violate the principle of double jeopardy.
In simpler terms, the case established that actions taken by customs authorities and criminal prosecution are considered separate, and being penalised by customs authorities does not protect one from prosecution in criminal court for the same offence.
In the case of Roshan Lal & Ors v. State of Punjab, three appellants were initially charged and acquitted for offences under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly making false pathnames regarding the recovery of gold biscuits. Subsequently, they were convicted again for different offences under Section 120-B of the IPC, Sections 135 & 136 of the Customs Act, Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, and other offences.
The appellants challenged the validity of the second trial, arguing that it violated their constitutional right under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
The court carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It concluded that the offences and facts involved in the second trial differed entirely from those in the first. The second trial dealt with a different point, and the inquiry into offences under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act was different. Therefore, the court held that the second trial was not barred under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898.
In simple terms, the court clarified that a person could be prosecuted again if the offences and facts in the second trial differ from those in the first. Since the offences charged and the facts involved were distinct in the second trial, there was no legal bar to prosecuting the case again in the second trial.
CONCLUSION:
The concept of double jeopardy is provided in both the Indian Constitution (Article 20(2)) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 300). The idea of double jeopardy under the Criminal procedure code contains more guidelines than the Constitution of India.
The concept of double jeopardy has certain conditions before being invoked. The idea of double jeopardy is crucial to protect individuals from facing the emotional, social, and financial burdens of multiple prosecutions. It also ensures the finality and integrity of the courts. Double jeopardy ensures fairness and accountability within the criminal justice system.