1955 (12) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....secution after obtaining the necessary sanction filed a second charge sheet on the same facts. The petitioner submitted before the trial Court that the second prosecution was barred under Section 403, Cr.P.C. and the trial Court held that inasmuch as no sanction had been produced at the time when the previous trial commenced there was nothing to bar a second prosecution. The trial of the case, therefore, proceeded. 2. The contention of the petitioner before us is that the second prosecution was illegal under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. It is urged that the petitioner on a prior occasion was prosecuted and punished and having regard to the express terms of Article 20(2) of the Constitution a second prosecution was incompetent. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....who wants to get the benefit of this provision should be prosecuted as well as punished. The words therein are 'prosecuted and punished'. The words are conjunctive. It would not do if he was merely prosecuted and not punished. It was urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner, after the conviction by the trial Court and before the matter was disposed of by the Sessions Court, had undergone some portion of the sentence of imprisonment; therefore, having undergone punishment he could not again be prosecuted and punished. An accused obtaining a reversal of the order of the trial Court on appeal is estopped from pleading previous conviction although the accused at the time of the reversal had served out a pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainant's absence was not in contravention of Article 20(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, in our opinion, this case cannot help the petitioner. The other case to which our attention was invited was the case decided by the Supreme Court on 17-4-1953 the case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay 1983 ECR 1598 D(SC) . This was a case where the Supreme Court held that the Sea Customs Authorities were not a judicial tribunal and as such any punishment by them would not bring the case within the ambit of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, to constitute double jeopardy. This case also, in our opinion, is not relevant and cannot be relied upon. In case before us the former proceedings were no doubt before a criminal Court but that Court co....