300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Article 20 of the Constitution of India
20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences
Article 20(2) : It is protection against Double Jeopardy in Criminal cases.
Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 10 January, 2014
Hon’ble Apex court held some key aspects in this landmark judgment such as,
- What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised?
- Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. could only mean evidence tested by cross examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?
- Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?
- What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood convicted?
- Does the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?
Citations : [2014 SCC CRI 2 86], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 623], [2014 SUPREME 1 132], [2014 SLT 1 465], [2014 AIOL 21], [2014 SCC 3 92], [2014 CRIMES SC 1 133], [2014 AIR SC 1400], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 1 772], [2014 ALLMR CRI SC 801], [2014 AIR SC 667], [2014 CRLJ SC 1118], [2014 JLJR SC 2 385], [2014 SCALE 1 241], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 26], [2014 KLJ 1 410], [2014 AIC 135 86], [2014 ALD CRL SC 2 152], [2014 PLJR 2 482], [2014 KHC 1 170], [2014 ALLCC 85 313], [2014 CCR SC 1 244], [2014 ADJ 1 727], [2014 LW CRL 1 440], [2014 UC 1 304], [2014 CGLRW SC 1 491], [2014 RLW SC 1 727], [2014 SCJ 2 366], [2015 NCC 1 613], [2014 AD SC 1 609], [2014 JT SC 1 412], [2014 CAL LJ 2 75], [2014 KLT SC 1 336], [2014 AIR SCW 667]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78958066/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af56e4b014971141618b
The latest case law from SC on this subject is here.
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr on 18 January, 2011
In this Appeal on a Election Petition, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the evidences of the witness are not just hearsay but utter lies.
Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited Vs Sharda Steel Corporation on 26 March, 2012
High Court of Gurajat held in this judgment that, disposal of perjury can be done at the end of a main petition/case but it does not stop magistrate to form an opinion by conducting a preliminary inquiry.
CrPC 344 – Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence
Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011
Bombay High Court has given 1 month imprisonment for a person for giving false evidence in a case. And maximum fine allowed under 344 CrPC, which is paltry Rs.500/- And if Rs.500/- not paid, 1 more week of imprisonment.
So 1 week of imprisonment = Rs.500/- ???
Jagdish Prasad Vs State and Others on 23 March, 2009
This is a facepalm experience for the ADJ who said that,
“Mere recording of a finding to the effect that an offence punishable under section 193 of the Penal Code was committed would not answer requirement of section 340 of the Code. When primary question was answered in affirmative then secondary and most effective proposition was to be answered to the effect whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an action in the matter. No such step was taken by the Trial Court to see that it was expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. In such a situation, order impugned is shrouded with illegality. In cannot be allowed to stand.”
For which, the High Court of Delhi gave a befitting answer, such as from Para 18,
In the considered view of this Court, when the learned MM in the order dated 9th September 2005 observed “I am, therefore, of the opinion that Smt. Veena has committed an offence under Section 193 IPC and she ought to be prosecuted for the same”, the requirement of Section 340 CrPC as explained by the Supreme Court stood satisfied. In other words, the opinion formed by learned MM was obviously only a tentative or a prima facie one. This is plain from the expression “ought to be prosecuted”. Further, the same expression “ought to be prosecuted” also indicates the formation of an opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that Respondent No.2 should be prosecuted. Therefore, both the requirements of law as explained by the Supreme Court in relation to Section 340 CrPC stood completely satisfied by the order dated 9th September 2005 passed by the learned MM. This Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the conclusion reached by learned ASJ to the contrary.
Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr on 26 August, 2010
A fine of Rs.40,000/- was levied on the pejurer for lying repeatedly on affidavits as well as under oath by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.