9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legality of the second prosecution under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. 2. Interpretation of Article 20(2) regarding prosecution and punishment. 3. Effect of appeal against acquittal on Article 20(2) protection. 4. Application of the principle of 'autrefois convict' in subsequent prosecution. Analysis: The judgment concerns an application for a Writ of Prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding a second prosecution after the petitioner was acquitted in the first trial due to lack of proper sanction. The petitioner argued that the second prosecution was illegal under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits being prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. The court examined the nature of appeal against acquittal, stating that it is a continuation of the proceedings and does not bar a subsequent conviction. The court emphasized that to benefit from Article 20(2), the individual must be both prosecuted and punished, not merely prosecuted. The petitioner's claim of having undergone punishment during the first conviction was dismissed, citing legal precedents and the principle of 'autrefois convict' which does not apply if the previous conviction was based on defective grounds. Moreover, the court referenced a decision by the Allahabad High Court and a Supreme Court case to highlight that a second complaint or punishment by non-judicial authorities does not violate Article 20(2). In this case, the previous prosecution was deemed a nullity due to lack of proper sanction, rendering the former conviction ineffective as a bar to subsequent prosecution. The court clarified that procedural defects, such as lack of sanction, do not protect the accused under 'autrefois convict.' Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the legality of the second prosecution and ordering costs to be paid by the petitioner.
|
