The Doctrine of Double Jeopardy: Protection Against Repeated Prosecution
The term "Double Jeopardy" comes from the French phrase Autrefois Convict, meaning "formerly convicted." In simple terms, it means that a person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offense.
1. The Legal Maxim
The doctrine is based on the Latin maxim: "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa."
Translation: No man should be vexed (punished or tried) twice for the same cause.
2. Constitutional Protection in India: Article 20(2)
In the Indian Constitution, Double Jeopardy is a Fundamental Right under Article 20(2). It states: "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."
Crucial Distinction for Entrance Exams: Unlike the American Constitution, which protects against a second trial (even if the first resulted in an acquittal), the Indian Constitution specifically uses the phrase "prosecuted and punished."
1. For Article 20(2) to apply in India, the person must have been both prosecuted (tried in court) and punished in the previous proceeding.
2. If a person was acquitted (found not guilty) in the first trial, Article 20(2) does not technically bar a fresh trial, though the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides broader protection.
3. Statutory Protection: Section 300 of CrPC (Section 337 of BNSS)
While the Constitution offers a narrow protection, Section 300 of the CrPC (now Section 337 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) offers a much wider shield.
1. It embodies the principles of Autrefois Convict (previously convicted) and Autrefois Acquit (previously acquitted).
2. It states that a person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction and convicted or acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offense while that conviction or acquittal remains in force.
4. Essential Conditions for Double Jeopardy
To claim protection under Article 20(2), three conditions must be met:
-
The person must be accused of an offence.
-
The proceeding or prosecution must have taken place before a "Court" or "Judicial Tribunal.
-
The person must have been prosecuted and punished in the previous proceeding.
This is a frequent area for "Principle-Fact" questions in law entrances:
-
Departmental Inquiries: If a government servant is dismissed after a departmental inquiry and then prosecuted in a criminal court, it is not double jeopardy. Departmental proceedings are not "prosecutions" by a court.
-
Distinct Offenses: If one act constitutes two different offenses under different laws (e.g., a car accident leading to a charge of "Rash Driving" and a separate charge for "Driving without a License"), being tried for both is not double jeopardy.
-
Continued Offenses: If the offense is ongoing in nature.
6. Landmark Case Law
-
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953): The Supreme Court held that the arrival of a person with undeclared gold, leading to confiscation by Customs authorities, did not prevent a subsequent criminal prosecution. The Customs authorities are not a "Court," so Article 20(2) was not triggered.
-
S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954): Reaffirmed that an inquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act is not a "prosecution," and therefore, subsequent criminal charges do not constitute double jeopardy.
Conclusion for Law Aspirants
The Doctrine of Double Jeopardy acts as a check on the police and the prosecution. For entrance exams, always check if the first proceeding resulted in both prosecution and punishment when applying the Constitutional principle, but remember that the statutory law protects even those who were acquitted.
