Meaning
The Doctrine of Double Jeopardy means that no person shall be prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence.
In other words, a person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same criminal act once they have already been convicted or acquitted by a competent court.
“Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa”
(No one should be vexed twice for the same cause.)
Constitutional Basis
- Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India states:
“No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”
- This embodies the common law principle of double jeopardy and provides a fundamental right protection to individuals against repeated prosecution for the same act.
Essentials / Ingredients
| Essential Element | Explanation |
| 1. Previous prosecution | The person must have been previously prosecuted before a competent court. |
| 2️. Punishment awarded | The person must have been convicted and punished in the previous proceeding. |
| 3️. Same offence | The subsequent prosecution must be for the same offence for which the person was earlier prosecuted and punished. |
| 4️. Judicial proceeding | The earlier proceeding must be before a judicial tribunal (not departmental or administrative). |
What It Does NOT Cover
- It does not apply to departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial separately.
- (Example: A government servant can face both departmental inquiry and criminal prosecution for same act.)
- It bars second prosecution after conviction or acquittal, but not after investigation or filing of FIR.
- It applies only when punishment has been imposed in the first prosecution.
Landmark Judgments
| Case Name | Facts / Issue | Principle Laid Down |
| Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325 | Person caught with gold at airport was punished under Customs, then prosecuted again under Foreign Exchange laws. | Held: Proceedings before Customs Authorities are not judicial, so Article 20(2) not attracted. |
| S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 375 | Employee punished departmentally and then prosecuted criminally. | Held: Departmental proceedings ≠ prosecution; double jeopardy not violated. |
| Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 375 | Person punished under one law and again tried under another for same act. | Court clarified — must be “same offence,” not merely same act. |
| Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao, (2011) 2 SCC 703 | Accused convicted under Section 304-A IPC, later charged under Section 302 IPC for same incident. | Held: Once convicted, cannot be tried again for same offence — protected under Article 20(2). |
| State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte, AIR 1961 SC 578 | One act may constitute two different offences under two laws. | Double jeopardy applies only if the offences are identical in ingredients. |
Objective
- To protect individuals from harassment of repeated trials for the same offence.
- To uphold the finality of judgments and ensure fairness in criminal justice.
- To prevent abuse of process by prosecuting authorities.
- To safeguard personal liberty and promote rule of law.
Summary
| Aspect | Details |
| Constitutional Provision | Article 20(2) – Fundamental Right |
| Principle | No person shall be prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence |
| Applies To | Judicial proceedings resulting in conviction/punishment |
| Does Not Apply To | Departmental inquiries, different offences from same act |
| Key Cases | Maqbool Hussain, S.A. Venkataraman, Kolla Veera Raghav Rao |
| Objective | Protect individuals from multiple punishments and preserve fairness in justice system |
In Simple Words
Once a person has been punished or acquitted for an offence, the law does not allow another prosecution for the same offence — ensuring fairness, liberty, and protection from State overreach.
Doctrine-of-Double-Jeopardy
Add a Comment