Double jeopardy and same-facts bar prevent a later fraud prosecution after conviction for cheque dishonour.

Article 20(2) bars a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence, while section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is broader and also prevents a fresh trial for another offence arising from the same facts where an earlier charge could have been made. On the same factual foundation, a prior conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act did not permit a later prosecution under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The later prosecution was therefore barred by section 300(1) and could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after a conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the same facts, the appellant could again be tried and punished under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in view of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Article 20(2) prohibits a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence, while section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is wider and bars a fresh trial not only for the same offence but also for any other offence arising from the same facts, where a different charge could have been made earlier. The prior conviction under section 138 and the subsequent prosecution under section 420 rested on the same factual foundation.

Conclusion: The later prosecution under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was barred by section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and could not be sustained.

---