Distinct offences under the Sati prevention law are not barred by double jeopardy when each provision targets different conduct.

Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act creates a substantive offence of doing any act for the glorification of Sati, while Section 6(3) punishes contravention of a prohibitory order issued to prevent acts towards Sati or its glorification. Because the two provisions operate in different fields, contain different ingredients, and protect different interests, they are distinct offences in law. Prosecution under both provisions is therefore not barred by Article 20(2) or the rule against double jeopardy. The view that Section 5 was eclipsed once a Section 6 order was issued was incorrect.

---

---

Issues: Whether the offences under Section 5 and Section 6(3) of the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Ordinance, 1987 / Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 are distinct offences so as not to attract the bar of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 5 creates a substantive offence of doing any act for the glorification of Sati and punishes the act itself. Section 6 confers preventive power on the Collector and District Magistrate to prohibit acts towards the commission of Sati or the glorification of its commission, and Section 6(3) punishes contravention of such order. The two provisions operate in different fields, have different ingredients, and protect different interests: one penalises glorification of Sati, while the other penalises defiance of a lawful prohibitory order. The rule against double jeopardy applies only where the same offence is prosecuted and punished twice, and not where the offences are distinct in legal character and content.

Conclusion: The offences under Section 5 and Section 6(3) are not the same, and prosecution under both provisions is not barred by Article 20(2) or the rule against double jeopardy. The High Court's view that Section 5 stood eclipsed once an order under Section 6 was issued was incorrect.

---