Plea Against Double Jeopardy Can't Be Rejected On Ground Of Delay: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the applications invoking the doctrine of double jeopardy cannot be rejected merely on grounds of delay or the need to lead evidence, emphasizing that protection from double jeopardy is a constitutional and fundamental right and can be invoked at any time during the trial. The bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed; "when such an...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the applications invoking the doctrine of double jeopardy cannot be rejected merely on grounds of delay or the need to lead evidence, emphasizing that protection from double jeopardy is a constitutional and fundamental right and can be invoked at any time during the trial.
The bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed;
"when such an application, invoking the doctrine of double jeopardy is filed, the same cannot be rejected either on the ground of delay or that the evidence would be required to be led by the parties, as the question of double jeopardy has to be decided as and when it is raised by the parties otherwise, the whole purpose of such an enactment would be lost, i.e., to save a person from undergoing the plight of facing the same trial, twice. It must be kept in mind that the protection from being tried for the same offence twice is not only a legal right but also a Constitutional and fundamental right which can be exercised at any given point of time in the life of a trial".
The petition was filed challenging the order of September 2, 2011, passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed his criminal revision petition on the grounds of delay.
Per the petitioner, a complaint was filed against the petitioner for multiple bank drafts processed in March 2005. The petitioner was previously tried for the offence of cheating (Section 420), forgery (Section 467) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B). The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Revisional Court erred in dismissing the revision only on the ground of limitation, holding that the application under Section 300(1) of CrPC was filed after a period of four years and thus evidence is required to be led by the parties.
For context, Section 300(1) of CrPC prohibits the subsequent trial of a person who has already been tried by a competent court and either convicted or acquitted for the same offence.
The counsel for the petitioner further conteded that it was the petitioner's legal and constitutional right to file such an application, which would not be denied on the grounds of limitation. The counsel further contended that since the matter regarding the bank drafts and the amount for which the petitioner was tried in the Court at Vadodara were similar to that of the Court at Dhar, there was no reason to reject the application of double jeopardy.
The court noted that the bank drafts in question in the present matter were also the drafts on the basis of which the complaint was filed in Vadodara, excluding one additional draft, which would not change the nature of the offence. The court noted that Section 300(1) of CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution would apply in this case.
Regarding the delay in filing the application, the court noted that the protection from double jeopardy is not only a legal right but also a constitutional and fundamental right which can be exercised at any time during the life of the trial.
Thus, the bench allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: Harsh v State of Madhya Pradesh, Misc Criminal Case No. 7919 of 2011
For Petitioner: Advocate Girish Desai
For State: Government Advocate Romil Verma