Double jeopardy does not bar fresh prosecution where the earlier case was void for want of sanction.

The protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) applies only when a person has been validly prosecuted and punished for the same offence. A prior prosecution that is void for want of sanction is a nullity and cannot support a plea of former conviction, former jeopardy, or autrefois convict. On that basis, the earlier setting aside of the conviction for lack of sanction did not bar a fresh prosecution once sanction was obtained, and the second prosecution was permissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second prosecution was barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India after the earlier conviction had been set aside for want of sanction and whether the previous proceedings could operate as a bar under the principle of double jeopardy.

Analysis: The protection against double jeopardy applies only where a person has been both prosecuted and punished for the same offence in valid proceedings. The earlier prosecution was held to be a nullity because the requisite sanction had not been obtained, and a proceeding that is void for want of sanction cannot found a plea of former conviction or former jeopardy. A defective or invalid prosecution does not attract the bar under Article 20(2), nor can it sustain a plea of autrefois convict. The prior decision setting aside the conviction for want of sanction therefore did not prevent a fresh prosecution after sanction was obtained.

Conclusion: The second prosecution was not barred, and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

---