2003 (1) TMI 723 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Ordinance and Act.
2. Publication and enforcement of the prohibitory order issued by the Collector.
3. Overlapping provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Ordinance/Act.
4. Applicability of the rule against double jeopardy.

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity:
The Division Bench of the High Court found that, barring Section 19, the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Ordinance and Act are "perfectly legal and constitutional." However, Section 19 was declared "unconstitutional and void."

2. Publication and Enforcement of Prohibitory Order:
The High Court held that the prohibitory order issued by the Collector on 06.10.1987 was not duly published. Although the order was publicized through newspapers and radio, it was not published in the official gazette. Consequently, the prohibitory order "cannot be said to have been promulgated," and thus, could not be enforced. As a result, prosecutions for alleged violations of this order were not maintainable.

3. Overlapping Provisions of Sections 5 and 6:
The High Court opined that Sections 5 and 6 are overlapping, and once a prohibitory order is issued u/s 6(2), Section 5 ceases to apply. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the offences u/s 5, u/s 6(1) r/w Section 6(3), and u/s 6(2) r/w Section 6(3) are "three distinct offences." Section 5 punishes the "commission of an act for the glorification of Sati," while Section 6 punishes the "contravention of the prohibitory order issued by the Collector." The Supreme Court emphasized that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 5 and 6(3) are different and do not necessarily overlap.

4. Rule Against Double Jeopardy:
The Supreme Court clarified that Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once, does not apply if the ingredients of the two offences are distinct. The Court held that the offences under Sections 5 and 6(3) are distinct and, therefore, prosecution and punishment under both sections do not violate the rule against double jeopardy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed that the prosecution shall proceed against the accused persons consistently with the observations made. The Trial Court was instructed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the first appearance of the accused persons.