Parallel prosecutions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and Penal Code raise double jeopardy questions and were referred to a larger Bench.

The article examines whether prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act and prosecution for offences such as cheating or criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code can proceed on the same facts without violating Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 20(2) of the Constitution. It notes conflicting coordinate-Bench views: one line treats the statutory ingredients as distinct despite factual overlap, while another suggests a later Penal Code prosecution may be barred after trial under the special statute on the same facts. It also explains that divergent two-Judge decisions on the same legal issue required referral to a larger Bench for authoritative determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and prosecution for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can proceed on the same factual allegations without attracting the bar under Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the conflicting views expressed in earlier two-Judge decisions required reference of the legal issue to a larger Bench.

Issue (i): whether prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and prosecution for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can proceed on the same factual allegations without attracting the bar under Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed two lines of authority. One line held that the ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the ingredients of offences such as cheating and criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are distinct, even if there is some factual overlap. The other line held that where a person has already been tried under the special statute on the same facts, the later prosecution for offences under the Penal Code may be barred by Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court noted that these views were rendered by Benches of equal strength and were in direct conflict on the governing legal question.

Conclusion: The legal issue was found to be unsettled because of conflicting decisions of coordinate Benches.

Issue (ii): whether the conflicting views expressed in earlier two-Judge decisions required reference of the legal issue to a larger Bench.

Analysis: The Court held that judicial discipline requires consistency where Benches of equal strength take divergent views on the same legal issue. To avoid confusion and maintain certainty in the law, the Court considered it appropriate not to decide the conflict finally in the present proceedings and instead place the matter before a larger Bench for authoritative determination of the questions formulated.

Conclusion: The matter was referred to a larger Bench for decision on the formulated questions of law.

Final Conclusion: No final ruling was returned on the substantive maintainability of the parallel prosecutions, and the legal controversy was left for authoritative resolution by a larger Bench.

---