Double jeopardy applies only to the same offence; distinct defalcation transactions can be separately prosecuted despite a broad conspiracy.

Article 20(2) and Section 300 of the CrPC bar a later prosecution only where it is for the same offence; distinct defalcations arising from different treasuries, financial years, vouchers, allotment letters and supply orders remain separately triable even if linked by a general conspiracy. The Court also held that the scheme of Sections 212, 219, 220 and 221 supports separate trials for distinct transactions spread over time, and that issue estoppel does not apply where the factual matrix differs between periods. Delay in filing the appeals was condoned on the basis of the departmental explanation and the interest of substantial justice, and the quashing orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred separate prosecutions for defalcations alleged in different treasuries and different financial years despite a general conspiracy; (ii) Whether the delay in filing the appeals by the CBI deserved condonation.

Issue (i): Whether Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred separate prosecutions for defalcations alleged in different treasuries and different financial years despite a general conspiracy.

Analysis: A general conspiracy may span several years and may provide the background for multiple acts, but the governing test for double jeopardy is whether the later prosecution is for the same offence. The material facts here showed distinct withdrawals from different treasuries, in different financial years, on the basis of different fake vouchers, allotment letters and supply orders, involving different amounts and different sets of accused. The Court applied the distinction between a general conspiracy and separate substantive offences, and held that where the defalcations are distinct in time, place and particulars, the bar under Article 20(2) and Section 300 does not arise. The scheme of Sections 212, 219, 220 and 221 of the Code also supports separate trials for offences spread over more than one year and for distinct transactions. Issue estoppel was also held inapplicable because the factual matrix differed from case to case and prior findings on one period could not control later periods as a matter of law.

Conclusion: The separate prosecutions were not barred, and the High Court's quashing orders could not be sustained on the ground of double jeopardy or issue estoppel.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the appeals by the CBI deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the departmental process and movement of files through official channels. The Court held that, in the facts of the case, the explanation was sufficient and that the matter should not be thrown out on limitation when substantial justice required examination of the merits.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned High Court judgments were set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the pending trials.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the decisive inquiry is whether the later prosecution is for the same offence; distinct substantive offences arising from different transactions, periods, amounts and sets of acts are separately triable notwithstanding a broad overarching conspiracy.

---