Double jeopardy barred fresh sales tax prosecution after acquittal; joint liability could not justify a second trial against the same accused.

Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code barred a second trial for the same offence after prior acquittal, so the authorities could not re-open prosecution for non-payment of sales tax against the same person for the same year. Although Rule 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules made the dealer and partner jointly and severally liable, that procedural liability did not justify re-commencing proceedings in a form that would effectively subject the same accused to fresh punishment for the same default. The firm was the proper entity to have been proceeded against initially, and the earlier choice to prosecute the partner individually prevented the subsequent prosecution. The acquittal was therefore justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second prosecution for non-payment of sales tax for the same year was barred by the previous acquittal, and whether the firm or its partners could be proceeded against in the circumstances.

Analysis: Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code barred a fresh trial for the same offence against a person who had already been prosecuted and acquitted. Rule 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules made the dealer and the partner jointly and severally liable, but that liability did not permit the authorities to avoid the consequence of the earlier prosecution by re-commencing proceedings in a manner that would in substance expose the same person to a second trial and punishment for the same default. The firm was the proper entity to be proceeded against, and the difficulty arose because the authorities had earlier prosecuted the partner individually instead of prosecuting the firm in the first instance.

Conclusion: The subsequent prosecution was barred so far as Jacob Nadar was concerned, and the remaining partner could not be separately proceeded against in the manner adopted. The acquittal was therefore justified.

---