Fresh security force trial valid where earlier proceedings were alleged unfair and double jeopardy did not arise

The competent authority could dissolve the General Security Force Court and direct constitution of a fresh court where the earlier proceedings were alleged to be unfair, and that course was treated as protective rather than prejudicial to the appellant. The authority acted within the power conferred by the Border Security Force Act. The plea of double jeopardy was inapplicable because the appellant had neither been convicted nor acquitted in the first trial. The challenge based on prejudice and double jeopardy therefore failed, and the fresh trial was held valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the competent authority could dissolve the General Security Force Court and direct constitution of a fresh court, and whether such re-trial caused prejudice or attracted the bar of double jeopardy.

Analysis: The appellant had himself alleged that the earlier trial was unfair and that the law officer and prosecutor were acting to deny a fair trial. In that context, the dissolution of the court and constitution of a fresh court was treated as an taken to protect the appellant's interest rather than to prejudice him. The authority was held to be acting within the power conferred by the Border Security Force Act. As the appellant had not been convicted or acquitted in the first trial, the plea of double jeopardy was held to be inapplicable.

Conclusion: The dissolution of the court and direction for a fresh trial were valid, and the challenge based on prejudice and double jeopardy failed.

---