1954 (3) TMI 65 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of criminal proceedings.
2. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
3. Nature of enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850.
4. Definition and scope of "prosecution" and "punishment" under Article 20(2).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Criminal Proceedings
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Delhi, to initiate criminal proceedings against him. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were without jurisdiction as they violated his fundamental rights under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 20(2)
The petitioner contended that the criminal proceedings amounted to a fresh prosecution for offenses for which he had already been prosecuted and punished, thus violating Article 20(2) of the Constitution. This article embodies the principle of "Nemo debet bis vexari," meaning a person should not be put in peril twice for the same offense. The petitioner argued that he had already faced an enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and had been dismissed from service, which constituted both prosecution and punishment.

3. Nature of Enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850
The court examined whether the enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, constituted a prosecution and punishment as contemplated by Article 20(2). The enquiry was conducted by a Commissioner who had some powers akin to a court, such as summoning witnesses and recording evidence on oath. However, the court concluded that the enquiry was a fact-finding mission to assist the government in deciding on disciplinary action and did not amount to a criminal prosecution or punishment.

4. Definition and Scope of "Prosecution" and "Punishment" under Article 20(2)
The court emphasized that for Article 20(2) to apply, there must be both prosecution and punishment for the same offense. The terms "prosecution" and "punishment" were interpreted in the context of criminal law, meaning that the prosecution must be for an offense defined by law, and the punishment must be as prescribed by that law. The court found that the enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act did not meet these criteria. The enquiry was administrative, not judicial, and aimed at determining whether disciplinary action was warranted, not at prosecuting a criminal offense.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, did not constitute prosecution and punishment under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated by the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Delhi, did not violate the petitioner's fundamental rights. The petition was dismissed.

Separate Judgments:
No separate judgments were delivered by the judges in this case. The judgment was unanimous.

Final Order:
Petition dismissed.