Invalid sanction and jurisdiction prevented double jeopardy; an acquittal in a void prosecution did not bar fresh proceedings.

A prosecution instituted without the required valid statutory sanction is a nullity, and any acquittal entered in that proceeding is not an acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction. The bar under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the common law plea of autrefois acquit, applies only where the accused was previously tried lawfully by a competent court. The prior acquittal therefore did not create double jeopardy and did not bar a fresh prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether a prior acquittal recorded by a court that lacked jurisdiction because the prosecution had been instituted without valid sanction could bar a subsequent prosecution under the rule against double jeopardy.

Analysis: The earlier prosecution was instituted under the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, 1943, which prohibited prosecution without prior sanction. The sanction obtained for the first prosecution was held invalid, and once the court found that no valid sanction existed, the court was not competent to proceed with the case. An acquittal entered in such circumstances was not an acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction but a nullity in law. Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure protects only a person who has once been tried by a court competent to try the offence. The same principle governed the common law plea of autrefois acquit, because jeopardy arises only where the first trial was lawful.

Conclusion: The earlier acquittal did not bar the fresh prosecution, and the plea based on Section 403 and autrefois acquit failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution instituted without a valid statutory sanction is a nullity, and an acquittal recorded by the court in such a proceeding is not an acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of double jeopardy.

---