Double jeopardy

Background:

The judgment is based on an appeal filed by the State of Mizoram against an order passed by the Gauhati High Court in August 2015.

• The corruption case was filed by the Aizawl police in February 2009 for misappropriation of public money. During inquiry, it was detected that the respondent had acquired valuable assets disproportionate to known sources of income.
• The first invalid sanction for prosecution was issued by the Commissioner-Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DP & AR) directly without the Governor’s approval.
• Following the discharge of the accused by the special court, the Governor accorded a fresh sanction in December 2013. However, the high Court upheld a Special Court decision to decline to entertain a second chargesheet filed in a corruption case against the accused on the ground of double jeopardy.

What has the Court ruled?

• Article 20 (2) of the Constitution mandates that a person cannot be prosecuted or punished twice for the same offence.
• The court held that if an accused has not been tried at all and convicted or acquitted, the principles of double jeopardy cannot be invoked at all. If an earlier order of sanction was found to be invalid, there is no bar for the competent authority to issue a proper order of sanction for prosecution.
• The courts are not to quash or stay the proceedings under any Act merely on the ground of an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of justice, the SC observed.

About Article 20- Protection in respect of conviction for offences:

1. No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
2. No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
3. No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Key facts:

• Article 20 has taken care to safeguard the rights of persons accused of crimes.
• Persons here means the citizens, non-citizens as well as corporations.
• This article cannot be suspended even during an emergency in operation under article 359.
• Article 20 also constitutes the limitation on the legislative powers of the Union and State legislatures.

Ex-Post facto Law Article 20 (1):

It says that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. This is called Ex-Post facto Law. It means that legislature can not make a law which provides for punishment of acts which were committed prior to the date when it came into force. This means that a new law can not punish an old act.

Doctrine of Double Jeopardy:

Article 20(2) says that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This is called Doctrine of Double Jeopardy. The objective of this article is to avoid harassment, which must be caused for successive criminal proceedings, where the person has committed only one crime.

There are two aspects of Doctrine of Jeopardy viz. autrefois convict and autrefois acquit. Autrefois convict means that the person has been previously convicted in respect of the same offence. The autrefois acquit means that the person has been acquitted on a same charge on which he is being prosecuted. Please note that Constitution bars double punishment for the same offence. The conviction for such offence does not bar for subsequent trial and conviction for another offence and it does not matter the some ingredients of these two offences are common.

Self Incrimination Law:

Article 20(3) of the constitution says that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This is based upon a legal maxim which means that No man is bound to accuse himself. The accused is presumed to be innocent till his guilt is proved. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish his guilt.

Sources: the hindu.