Summary
The Supreme Court held that discharge before trial for want of proper prosecution sanction did not bar a fresh chargesheet supported by competent sanction. The accused had neither been tried nor convicted or acquitted, so double jeopardy did not apply. The State’s appeal was allowed, and the Special Court was directed to take cognizance of the fresh chargesheet and proceed according to law. Defences based on departmental exoneration and other merits were left open.
Issues
- Whether fresh prosecution after discharge for defective sanction was barred by double jeopardy.
- Whether the Special Court should take cognizance once competent sanction was produced.
- Whether departmental exoneration required determination at this stage.
Provisions considered
- Article 20(2), Constitution of IndiaThe protection against repeated prosecution and punishment did not apply where the earlier proceeding ended in discharge for invalid sanction before trial. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Section 300(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The statutory bar presupposed trial by a competent court and a subsisting conviction or acquittal. A pretrial discharge for defective sanction did not satisfy those conditions. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Held
- Invalidity of the earlier sanction did not prohibit the competent authority from granting proper sanction and the prosecution from submitting a fresh or supplementary chargesheet. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The respondent had been discharged before trial solely for lack of proper sanction. No subsisting conviction or acquittal existed, and double jeopardy therefore did not prevent fresh proceedings supported by valid sanction. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The Special Court erred in refusing cognizance after valid sanction was produced, and the High Court erred in sustaining that refusal. The fresh chargesheet was to be taken on file and proceedings continued according to law. (¶¶ 16, 18)
- The Court declined to determine the asserted effect of departmental exoneration. All contentions raised by the respondent were kept open. (¶ 17)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside. Special Court directed to take cognizance of the 30 January 2014 chargesheet and proceed according to law, with the respondent’s merits contentions open.