Double jeopardy does not bar sales tax prosecution where the later charge concerns a distinct offence and continuing default.

Pending prosecution under the Bihar Sales Tax Act was not barred by double jeopardy because the earlier acquittal related to different offences. The court treated the sales tax charge under Section 26(1)(a) as a continuing default of non-registration, not an act confined to the date of inspection, and held that the prior prosecution under Section 353 IPC and the later sales tax prosecution were distinct offences. Article 20(2) and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act apply only to prosecution and punishment for the same offence, and Section 403(4) CrPC allowed the later trial because the earlier Magistrate lacked competence to try the sales tax offence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pending prosecution was barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, and Section 403(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the petitioners had already been tried and acquitted on the same facts.

Analysis: The pending case under Section 26(1)(a) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act was based on a continuing default of non-registration and not on any act done on the date of inspection. As to Section 26(1)(h), the prior prosecution under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and the later prosecution under the sales tax law were for different offences, because the same acts may constitute different offences under different enactments. Article 20(2) applies only where there is prosecution and punishment for the same offence, and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act likewise bars double punishment only for the same offence. Section 403(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permitted the later trial because the Magistrate who tried the earlier case was not competent to try the sales tax offence.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred by double jeopardy or by the rule of autrefois acquit, and the challenge to the pending trial failed.

---