Double jeopardy requires identity of offence ingredients; a cheque case did not bar later IPC prosecution for distinct offences.

The rule against double jeopardy applies only where the earlier and later proceedings concern the same offence, judged by identity of essential ingredients rather than overlapping facts. Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and prosecutions for criminal breach of trust, cheating and abetment under the Penal Code require different ingredients, including mens rea for the latter offences. On that basis, the subsequent IPC prosecution was not barred, and refusal to quash it was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subsequent prosecution under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was barred by the doctrine of double jeopardy because the appellant had already faced proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The rule against double jeopardy, reflected in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, applies only where the earlier and later proceedings are for the same offence. The controlling test is identity of the ingredients of the offences, not identity of the factual allegations. Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and prosecutions for criminal breach of trust, cheating and abetment under the Indian Penal Code require different ingredients, including mens rea in the latter case, and therefore do not constitute the same offence.

Conclusion: The later prosecution was not barred by double jeopardy and the quashing application was rightly refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Double jeopardy is attracted only when the earlier and later proceedings are for offences whose essential ingredients are identical; mere overlap of facts does not bar a subsequent prosecution for a distinct offence.

---