1960 (12) TMI 82 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application and scope of Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
2. Application and scope of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act.
3. Distinction between offences under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 105 of the Indian Insurance Act.
4. Double jeopardy and its applicability.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application and Scope of Article 20(2) of the Constitution:
Article 20(2) states: "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once." The court emphasized that for Article 20(2) to apply, the second prosecution and punishment must be for the "same offence." The crucial requirement is that the offences must be identical. The court clarified that if the offences are distinct, notwithstanding similar allegations in the complaints, the benefit of the ban cannot be invoked. The analysis of the ingredients of the two offences (Section 409 IPC and Section 105 Insurance Act) revealed differences, thus they are not the same offence.

2. Application and Scope of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act:
Section 26 states: "Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence." The court noted that the emphasis is on the ingredients constituting the offences rather than the facts alleged. Since the offences under Section 409 IPC and Section 105 Insurance Act have different ingredients, the bar under Section 26 does not apply.

3. Distinction Between Offences Under Section 409 IPC and Section 105 Insurance Act:
The court compared the ingredients of the two offences:
- Section 409 IPC: Requires "entrustment" with property and a "dishonest intention" for misappropriation.
- Section 105 Insurance Act: Does not require entrustment or dishonest intention; it penalizes wrongful possession, withholding, or misapplication of property.

The court concluded that the offences are distinct in their ingredients, content, and scope, thus they are not the same offence.

4. Double Jeopardy and Its Applicability:
The court discussed the principle of double jeopardy, both under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act. It reiterated that double jeopardy applies only when the same offence is prosecuted and punished more than once. Since the offences under Section 409 IPC and Section 105 Insurance Act are distinct, double jeopardy does not apply.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case back to the Judicial Magistrate, Fourth Court, Poona, for further proceedings according to law. The court thanked Mr. N. S. Bindra for his assistance as amicus curiae.