Double jeopardy and prior consent under criminal procedure barred repeated prosecution on the same misappropriation facts.

Subsequent prosecution was treated as barred where the earlier and later cases arose from the same employment period, the same office, and the same core allegation of misappropriation through manipulation of the cash book and non-remittance of public funds. The analysis states that repeated prosecution on the same facts is prohibited by Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC when the factual matrix is not distinct. It further notes that, where a later trial is said to concern a distinct offence, prior State Government consent under Section 300(2) is required; no such consent was shown, so the convictions could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subsequent prosecution was barred by double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the absence of consent under Section 300(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiated the trial.

Analysis: The earlier prosecutions and the present prosecutions arose out of the same employment period, the same office, and substantially the same allegation of misappropriation of public funds from the State Seed Farm. The Court found that the core accusation in all the cases was misappropriation by manipulation of the cash book and non-remittance of amounts, and that the later cases were not based on a distinct factual matrix so as to escape the statutory and constitutional bar against repeated prosecution for the same offence or on the same facts. The Court further held that where a later trial is said to concern a distinct offence, prior consent of the State Government is required under Section 300(2), and no such consent was shown.

Conclusion: The subsequent prosecution was barred, the convictions could not stand, and the appellant succeeded.

---