doctrine of double jeopardy

1. VALAND NIRAVKUMAR VINODBHAI
PRN 2014033800033977
ROLL NO: 23 CONSTITUTION GROUP

2.  INTRODUCTION
 MEANING OF DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY
 DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND INDIAN LAW
 JUDICIAL REVIEW
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCE

3.  Doctrine of Double Jeopardy in simple word
means, ” No person shall be prosecuted and
punished for the same offence more than once.”
 Double Jeopardy is in French knows as “autrefois
convict”.
 Double Jeopardy embodies in English common
law’s maxim ‘nemo debet bis vexari, si constat
curice quod sit pro una iti eadem causa” (no man
shall be punished twice, if it appears to the court
that it is for one and the same cause).

4.  Meaning of Jeopardy : The word Jeopardy refers
to the “danger” of conviction that an accused
person is subjected to when one trial for an
criminal offence.
 Meaning of Double Jeopardy : The act of putting
a person through a second trial of an offence for
which he or she has already been prosecuted or
convicted.
 Principle of Double Jeopardy is incorporated into
the U.S. Constitution in the Fifth Amendment,
which says that “no person shall be twice put in
Jeopardy of life or limb.”

5. Under Article 20 of ‘Constitution of India’ :
Protection in Respect of Conviction for Same Offence:
 (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

6. Under Section 300 of Cr.P.C ,1973 :
 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be
tried for same offence.

7.  Thomas Dana vs. State of Punjab
The apex court of India has provided
guidelines for seeking remedies under article
20(2) Constitution of India that,
1) A person should be an Accuse of an offence
2) There should be Prosecution for offence
3) Result of prosecution should be punishment

8.  The Supreme Court of India in case of
Maqbool hussain vs State of Bombay held
that if a person is tried by any departmental
or quasi judicial authority he can not seek
remedy under article 20 (2).
 Prosecution of person must be done by
judicial authority to get redressal under
Article 20(2) of Constitution of India.

9.  It is a fundamental right of a accused person
not to be convicted twice for same offence
 It is a human right of a person that he must
not be punished more than he is actually
liable .
 A person can not be punished or convicted by
arbitrary powers

10.  The Constitutional law of India by Dr.
J.N.Pandey
 Code of criminal procedure, 1973
 Thomas Dana vs. State of Punjab AIR 1959,375
SCR
 Maqbool hussain vs State of Bombay AIR
1953,325 SC
 The American heritage dictionary.
 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.legalserviceindia.com