2012 (4) TMI 828 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Doctrine of Double Jeopardy
2. Application of Section 300 CrPC and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act

Summary:

Doctrine of Double Jeopardy:
The primary issue raised in this appeal concerns the scope and application of the doctrine of double jeopardy. The appellant argued that the pending criminal case under Sections 406/420 read with Section 114 IPC should be quashed as it constitutes double jeopardy, given that the appellant had already been tried and acquitted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The doctrine of double jeopardy, as enshrined in Section 300 CrPC, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, and Article 20(2) of the Constitution, prohibits a person from being tried twice for the same offence.

Application of Section 300 CrPC and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act:
The court examined whether the offences under Sections 406/420 IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act constituted the "same offence." It was emphasized that the test to determine double jeopardy is the identity of the ingredients of the offences, not merely the identity of the facts. The court cited multiple precedents, including *Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay* and *The State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte*, to illustrate that different offences with distinct ingredients do not attract the doctrine of double jeopardy, even if they arise from the same set of facts.

The court concluded that the offences under Sections 406/420 IPC involve elements of mens rea and fraudulent intention, which are not required to be proved under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The latter primarily deals with the dishonor of cheques and carries different legal presumptions and consequences. Therefore, the ingredients of the offences are distinct, and the subsequent prosecution under IPC is not barred by the doctrine of double jeopardy.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with the court holding that the subsequent case under Sections 406/420 read with Section 114 IPC is not barred by Section 300 CrPC, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, or the doctrine of double jeopardy.