Doctrine of Double Jeopardy: Citing Article 20(2) of Constitution, HC quashed order charging the accused for acquitted offences

May 31, 2019:

The Chattisgarh High Court has quashed the order given by Special Judge (SC / ST Act) to put a man on trial for charges he has been acquitted of citing Article 20(2) of Constitution which defines Doctrine of Double Jeopardy.

The order of High Court holds the Section 300 of CrPC as well which states, "Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence."

The petitioner herein has been two other persons were charge-sheeted by the jurisdictional police for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 read with Section 34, 467 read with Section 34, 468 read with Section 34 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The charges against the petitioner were framed  for the aforesaid offences.

Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under Section 320(1) of the CrPC for compounding the aforesaid offences in which complainant also filed an application for compounding the offence, under Section 320(2) of the CrPC separately as well as jointly with the accused persons for compounding the offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC and in which the statement of complainant was recorded on and thereafter, by order, the learned Special Judge permitted the offence under Sections 419 & 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC to be compounded and acquitted the petitioner herein under Section 320(8) of the CrPC and one more accused person finding the compromise to be bona fide, but ultimately, held that the petitioner has also committed offence under Sections 419 & 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC qua the Deputy Registrar, Korba, where the sale deed was produced for registration by co-accused and registered in the name of the petitioner, therefore, apart from other offences which have not been compounded, prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Sections 419 & 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC would continue.

The petitioner aggrieved only against this part of the order by which the learned Special Judge has directed continuation of prosecution of the petitioner even for offences under Sections 419 & 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, qua the  Deputy Registrar, Korba on the ground that such a prosecution of the petitioner after having been acquitted for offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC is impermissible under the law, as the effect of compounding would be the acquittal of the petitioner for the said offences under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC by virtue of the provision contained in Section 320(8) of the CrPC, as such, he cannot be prosecuted in an offence in which he has already been acquitted and the same is in teeth of the provision contained in Section 300(1) of the CrPC read with Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

The High Court after hearing the reply filed by the respondent stated mentioning an earlier Supreme Court order, "According to Section 320(8) of the CrPC, the composition of an offence shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. The effect is automatic. Wherever composition of an offence takes place it has instantaneous effect of statutory acquittal of the accused. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh (supra) held that once permission is granted to compound the offence, effect would be acquittal of accused in respect of offence compounded, by virtue of Section 320(8) of the CrPC."

The Court clarified, "Petitioner's further trial is expressly barred by virtue of the provision contained in Section 300(1) of the CrPC and he cannot be subjected to any other further trial of offences under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC having been committed against the State. Offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC allegedly committed by the petitioner was one and all and it cannot be even bifurcated one against the complainant and another against the officer / Deputy Registrar in whose office the offence was allegedly committed, such a concept is unknown to law."

Keeping all this in view the court ruled out,"Further trial of the petitioner is clearly barred by virtue of Section 300(1) of the CrPC, as in teeth of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and therefore that part of the order is liable to be set-aside."

The Judgement has been given by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal.

Read the Judgment here:

Picture Source :