Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doctrine Explained
Section 300(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that 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 charges from one made against him might have been made, or for
which he might have been convicted.
Section 300 is based upon the general principle of ‘autrefios acquit’ (formerly
acquitted) and ‘autrefios convict’ (formerly convicted) recognized by English Courts.
It is also acceptance of the principle of ‘issue-estoppel’ followed in Australia. Started
simply, the principle of ‘issue estoppel’ is that where an issue of fact has been tried by
a competent court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached, such a finding
would constitute an ‘estoppel’ or ‘res judicata’ between the parties and cannot be
reagitated in subsequent proceedings. It is based on the well known doctrine which
controls re-agitation of issues which are settled by prior litigation.
Conditions
In order that the bar of Section 300 may apply, the following conditions must be
satisfied:
Exceptions
There are, however, certain exceptions to the above rule which have been discussed in
sub-section (2) to (4) of section 300.
a) Distinct Offences:
A person acquitted or convicted of any offences may afterwards be tried with consent
of the State Government for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have
been made against him.
b) Consequential Acts:
A person convicted of any offence constituted of any act may afterwards be tried if
consequences take place subsequently which had not happened at the time when he was
convicted.
c) Jurisdiction of Courts
A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may subsequently be tried for any other
offence constituted by the same acts if the court by which he was first tried was not
competent to try it.
d) Dropping of Proceedings
A person discharged under Section 258 can be tried again for the same offence only
with the consent of the court by which he was discharged or by a superior court.
Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, the
offender can be tried again even if he is tried earlier under a different enactment.
When any citizen of India commits an offence outside India or on the high seas or any
person not being a citizen of India commits an offence on any ship or aircraft registered
in India, he can be tried in India notwithstanding his trial by a foreign court.
g) Dismissal of Complaint
h) Discharge of Accused
Discharge of an accuse person also does not operate as a bar to institution of fresh
proceedings against the accused for the same offence.
The principle underlying the plea of Autrefois Acquit is not fully stated merely by
saying that an accused person should not be vexed twice by prosecution on the same set
of facts. Autrefois Acquit is a plea by a criminal, that he was heretofore acquitted of the
same offence. By this plea, a person charged with an offence pleads that he had been
tried before and acquitted for the same offence by a competent court. By this plea it is
bar to a criminal action, stating that the defendant has already been indicated and tried
for the same alleged offence and has been acquitted.
Conversely the principle of Autrefois convict is also another doctrine which needs to be
discussed. This rule has originally been enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution of
India which states 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 commission of the offence, and no person shall be prosecuted and
punished for the same offence more than once.” This rule to be studied more so in tax
matters as there was a point to be discussed whether prosecution can be launched in a
tax case where penalty is already levied.
“Article 20(2) incorporates within its scope the plea of “autrefois convict “ as known to
the British Jurisprudence or the plea of double jeopardy as known to the American
Constitution, but circumscribes it by providing that there should be not only a
prosecution but also a punishment in the first instance in order to operate as a bar to a
second prosecution and punishment for the same offence.”
Article 20(2) contemplates proceedings of the nature of criminal proceedings and the
prosecution in this context means an initiation of proceedings of a criminal nature. The
first part of Article 20(1) prohibits a conviction while the second part deals with penalty
that may be inflicted on conviction. The word “penalty” has been used to denote the
sentence or punishment. Like Clause (2), Clause (1) also contemplates proceedings of
a criminal nature.
A criminal proceeding may be defined as one, which if carried to its conclusion may
result in imposition of sentence such as death, imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of
property. It also includes proceedings in which, in the larger interest of the State, orders
to prevent apprehended breach of the peace, orders to bind down persons who are a
danger to the maintenance of peace and orders aimed at preventing vagrancy are
contemplated to be passed.
CONCLUSION
The doctrine of Autrefois acquit and Autrefois convict has been included as a fundamental
right in our Constitution, though the purview of the doctrine is narrower than in other statutes
like Cr.PC, General Clauses Act, and that in other countries like U.K, U.S. However it is clear
that in such circumstances the Constitution shall prevail. To conclude it can be said that this
doctrine is a safeguard and acts as valve against the unlawful prosecution of a person for the
same offence for the second time. The pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict are one
of the preliminary pleas to bar any trial. As we have already analysed in the whole project that
the rule of issue estoppel is also related to the doctrine but even then this rule has not been
incorporated in the code as it was thought to be not advisable to do so at present. According to
the law commission our Supreme Court and High Court have not had proper opportunity yet
of considering all the implications of the rule and any hasty legislation may by its rigidity create
difficulties
Trial
In a warrant case the trial begins with the framing of the charge when the accused is
called upon to plead thereto : but in a summons case, as if is not necessary to frame a
formal charge, the ‘trial’ starts when the accused is brought before the Magistrate and
the particulars of the offence are stated to him. In a case exclusively triable by a court of
session the trial begins only after the committal proceedings by the Magistrate. The term
“trial” includes appeal and revision, which are a continuation of the first ‘trial’.
Juvenile Delinquency
William Coxton in the year 1484 used the word delinquent to refer a person who was
found guilty. Juvenile delinquency means the involvement by the teenagers in an
unlawful behaviour who is basically under the age of 18 and commits an act which is
considered as a crime. A child is known as a delinquent when he/she perpetrate a
mistake which is against the law and is not accepted by the society. A child is known as
a delinquent when he/she commits a mistake which is against the law and which is not
accepted by the society.
A child is born innocent, but due to the unhealthy environment, negligence of the basic
necessities and wrong company, a child may turn into a delinquent. Usually, somebody
has to have intent to break the law in order to commit a crime, but that is not always the
case. A person can be charged with a crime if that person is not aware of the law.
The circumstances in which a police officer does not need a search warrant to
conduct a search are stated in section 165, and these grounds are as follows:
1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making
an investigation has a reasonable grounds to believe that anything necessary
for the purpose of an investigation into any offence which he is authorized to
investigate may be found in any place and that thing cannot in his opinion be
obtained without undue delay without a search, such officer may search for
such thing in any place within the limits of such station.
4) If a police officer remained outside the house while the search was being
made inside by some subordinate officer, the search was not held to be
illegal.
5) Copies of any record made under sub section (1) shall be sent to the
nearest magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.
The question arose before the Hon’ble supreme court of India as to whether
issuance of search warrant infringes fundamental rights and the Hon’ble apex
court held AIR 1954 SC 300 that a search and seizure is only a temporary
interference with the right to hold premises searched and the articles seized.
Hence, no question of violation of Article 19 is involved. Also search and
seizure of documents from accused does not amount to infringement of
fundamental rights under Article 20(3) of the constitution.