Strengthen your Chhattisgarh mains preparation with our Chhattisgarh Mains Judgment writing Master Course starting from 12th November 2025.   |   This New Year, grab upto 50% Discount on all online courses & test series. The offer is valid from 25th to 29th December only.   |   Judiciary Course Page (www.drishtijudiciary.com/judiciary-courses) Content- Grab upto 50% Discount on Judiciary online courses & test series | Call 8750187501 to avail the discount.
         









Home / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita & Code of Criminal Procedure

Criminal Law

Section 300 CrPC

    «    »
 31-Oct-2023

    Tags:
  • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)

Introduction

  • In every criminal justice system, the aim is to punish the convicts of the crime for their wrongful acts and rehabilitate them. The system does not intend to harm the convicts by unnecessarily punishing them and making their lives difficult.
    • There are some instances where the convicts of the crimes, maybe repeat offenders, are convicted for their act multiple times even for the same offence.
  • Part III of the Indian Constitution provides certain fundamental rights, under these fundamental rights, Article 20(2) provides that, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
    • This article of the constitution provides for the basis of double jeopardy principle in India.
    • The doctrine is based upon the maxim Autrefois acquit, Autrefois convict meaning previously acquitted and previously convicted respectively.
      • The doctrine lays down that if a person is charged for an offence and is tried in the court of law of which he has been declared innocent or guilty, cannot be tried again for the same offence again.

History

  • The concept of double jeopardy marks its existence from the Latin maxim Nemo Debet bis Vexari which states that a man should not be presented in court of law twice for the same offence.
  • The doctrine of double jeopardy is defined under Section 300 of CrPC and also under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Double Jeopardy Laws in India

Under the Constitution of India, 1950

  • Part III of Indian Constitution defines double jeopardy under fundamental rights which is available to people within the territory of India. It is defined in Art 20(2) which states that:
    • No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
  • The essential components for prosecution are:
    • The first requirement is that a person must be accused of any offence.
    • The next essential is that there should be a proceeding or prosecution of the case before a competent court or a judicial tribunal. This judicial tribunal does not include departmental and administrative authorities. The defense of double jeopardy for second prosecution only exists against the cases which are tried at judicial courts or tribunals.
    • The other essential is that when a tribunal accepts the administrative and departmental enquiries, these enquiries are not considered as proceedings and therefore cannot be part of proceedings with respect to prosecution and punishment.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

  • The concept is defined under S. 300 of CrPC and gives a detail analysis by giving provisions on what will form a part of double jeopardy and what all are the exceptions made under it. One of the major points of emphasis that double jeopardy laws it deals with both the issues of autrefois convict and autrefois acquit. Therefore, double jeopardy is applicable to all those who are either acquitted or convicted of the offence.
  • There are six sub clauses under this section which aims to provide an exhaustive view on the concept.
    • 1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub- section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub- section (2) thereof.
    • 2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub- section (1) of section 220.
    • 3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last- mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
    • 4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
    • (5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first- mentioned Court is subordinate.
    • 6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code. Explanation. - The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section.

Illustrations for a better understanding:

  • (a) A is tried upon a charge of theft as a servant and acquitted, he cannot afterwards, while the acquittal remains in force, be charged with theft as a servant, or, upon the same facts, with theft simply, or with criminal breach of trust.
  • (b) A is tried for causing grievous hurt and convicted. The person injured afterwards dies. A may be tried again for culpable homicide.
  • (c) A is charged before the Court of Session and convicted of the culpable homicide of B. A may not afterwards be tried on the same facts for the murder of B.

Case Laws

  • Roshan Lal & ors v. State of Punjab (1964):
    • In this case there were three appellants who were charged under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for making false panchnama in which they have shown the recovery of 90 gold biscuits while as per the prosecution case 99 gold biscuits were recovered. The appellants were therefore tried for the same and acquitted thereafter.
    • However, the appellants were again tried under S 120-B, IPC and S 135 & 136 of Customs Act,1962, Section 85 of The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and some other offences. The validity of this second trial was challenged by the appellants on the ground that it is in contravention of their constitutional right guaranteed under Art 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
      • VERDICT – The SC held after giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it appears to us that the ingredients of the offences for which the appellants were charged in the first trial are entirely different. The second trial with which we are concerned in this appeal envisages a different fact situation and the enquiry for finding out constituting offences under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act in the second trial is of a different nature.
      • Not only are the ingredients of offences in the previous and the second trial different, the factual foundation of the first trial and such foundation for the second trial is also not indented.
      • Accordingly, the second trial was not barred under Section 300 CrPC as alleged by the appellants.
  • Analysis from Judgment:
    • From the judgment of this case, it can be said that courts are clear on the views that a person can be prosecuted again if the offences and facts of the second trial are different from the first trial.