Section 300 CrPC protection fails where an NDPS acquittal follows a trial conducted in breach of mandatory procedure.

Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure protects an accused only where the earlier conviction or acquittal followed a lawful trial before a court of competent jurisdiction. In NDPS prosecutions, competence includes compliance with the mandatory trial procedure applicable to the Special Court as a Court of Session. Where the earlier proceeding was conducted in complete departure from the prescribed procedure, it was treated as lacking jurisdiction, and the acquittal did not attract the bar against retrial under Section 300. The ruling therefore clarifies that procedural illegality in the first trial can prevent reliance on double jeopardy protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could invoke the bar under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to resist a retrial after an earlier acquittal recorded in proceedings conducted by following an incorrect trial procedure under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: Section 300 applies only where the accused has been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction and has been convicted or acquitted in a lawful trial. The Court held that competence for this purpose is not confined to the abstract power to try the offence, but also includes adherence to the mandatory procedure governing the trial. In NDPS prosecutions, the Special Court, being a Court of Session, is required to follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure as made applicable by the NDPS Act. Where the earlier trial was conducted in complete derogation of the prescribed procedure, the trial was treated as being without jurisdiction, and the resulting acquittal could not attract the protection of Section 300.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the bar against retrial under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the challenge to the retrial failed.

---