1957 (2) TMI 95 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Petitioners seeking writs to restrain prosecution for criminal charges without proper sanction.
- Interpretation of constitutional and criminal procedural provisions regarding double jeopardy and jurisdiction.

Analysis:
1. Background: Two petitioners, both Sub-Inspectors of Police, faced criminal charges in Bhopal. One petitioner's trial was deemed invalid due to lack of legal sanction, while the other's trial was quashed for the same reason. Fresh sanctions were issued for their prosecution, leading to the current petitions.

2. Legal Provisions: Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, empowered special judges to try specific offenses. Section 7 mandated that such offenses be tried only by special judges. Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, required prior sanction for prosecuting public servants. Article 20(2) of the Constitution prohibits double jeopardy, and Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars retrial after conviction or acquittal.

3. Precedent and Interpretation: Previous judicial decisions, including those by the Privy Council and the Federal Court, clarified that lack of jurisdiction, such as absence of required sanction, renders a trial null and void. The court emphasized that the first trial must be before a competent court for double jeopardy to apply.

4. Argument and Conclusion: Petitioners contended that the absence of sanction barred their retrial. However, the court rejected this argument, citing the necessity of legal sanction for jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the earlier proceedings were invalid, and no conviction or acquittal stood to prevent their retrial. The court also refuted the distinction between 'taking cognizance' and 'jurisdiction' in this context, emphasizing the mandatory nature of sanction requirements.

5. Final Verdict: The court found the petitions lacking merit and dismissed them, affirming that the petitioners could be retried for the same offenses due to the invalidity of the earlier proceedings. The judgment clarified the legal position on double jeopardy, jurisdiction, and the necessity of legal sanction for prosecuting public servants.