2009 (2) TMI 912 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Double Jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Jurisdiction and applicability of Indian laws versus US laws.
3. Interpretation of "offence" under Indian and US legal frameworks.

Summary:

Issue 1: Double Jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The appellant contended that the proceedings in India amounted to double jeopardy as he had already been tried and convicted in the USA for the same set of facts. Article 20(2) of the Constitution states, "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once," and Section 300 of the Code prohibits a second trial if the person has been convicted or acquitted. The appellant argued that the offences in India were identical to those in the USA, thus invoking the principle of double jeopardy.

The Court, however, held that the offences for which the appellant was tried in the USA were distinct from those in India. The US conviction was for "conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances" under Section 846 of Title 21 USC, while the Indian charges involved importation, possession, and export of Hashish under the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court concluded that the principle of double jeopardy did not apply as the offences were separate and distinct.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction and Applicability of Indian Laws versus US Laws
The appellant's counsel argued that the trial in the USA should preclude further prosecution in India, citing international covenants and the broad interpretation of Article 20. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the US courts was limited to offences committed within the USA, whereas the Indian courts had jurisdiction over offences committed on Indian soil.

The Court noted that the NDPS Act, 1985, extends to the whole of India and applies to all citizens of India outside India. Thus, the appellant could be tried in India for offences related to the importation and export of Hashish, which were not covered by the US trial.

Issue 3: Interpretation of "Offence" under Indian and US Legal Frameworks
The appellant's counsel argued that the term "offence" should be interpreted broadly to include any act punishable by law, regardless of jurisdiction. The Court, however, maintained that the definition of "offence" under Indian law must be understood within the context of Indian statutes and jurisdiction.

The Court referred to Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Penal Code, which allow for the trial of offences committed beyond India if they are punishable under Indian law. The Court concluded that the offences for which the appellant was being tried in India were distinct from those in the USA and did not attract the principle of double jeopardy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's decision, rejecting the appellant's plea of double jeopardy. The Court found that the offences for which the appellant was tried in the USA were distinct from those in India, and thus, the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Code did not apply. The appeal was dismissed.