Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Janardan Dukre, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of a supplementary charge sheet filed against him by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Special Case No. 78 of 2013, arising out of the same C.R. No. 18 of 2001. The background of the case is that on 28th March 2001, a complainant, Mr. C. Bhaskar, lodged a complaint against accused Rajiv Karshandas Bhatia (A-1), then working as a Manager with Indira Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dharavi Branch, Mumbai, for demanding a bribe of Rs.1,000/- from him for refunding the amount deposited in his savings bank account. The said accused directed the complainant to pay the bribe to the present petitioner, Sanjay Dukre. The ACB laid a trap and the petitioner was caught accepting the bribe. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and others in Special Case No. 91 of 2001 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial proceeded and the petitioner was acquitted by the Special Court on 31st March 2008. The State did not challenge the acquittal. Subsequently, the ACB filed a supplementary charge sheet in Special Case No. 78 of 2013 against the petitioner for the same offences based on the same facts, after obtaining a fresh sanction order dated 21.02.2012. The petitioner challenged this supplementary charge sheet on the ground of double jeopardy. The High Court examined the facts and held that the petitioner had already been tried and acquitted for the same offence based on the same set of facts. The court noted that the earlier trial was for the same incident and the same allegations, and the acquittal was on merits. The court further observed that the fresh sanction order did not revive the prosecution as the principle of autrefois acquit applied. The court quashed the supplementary charge sheet and the process issued by the trial court, holding that the second prosecution was barred under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Double Jeopardy - Section 300 CrPC, Article 20(2) Constitution - Autrefois Acquit - Petitioner was acquitted in Special Case No. 91 of 2001 for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on same facts - Subsequent supplementary charge sheet in Special Case No. 78 of 2013 for same offences based on same facts is barred - Held that prosecution for second time after acquittal is not permissible and amounts to abuse of process of law (Paras 1-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution of the petitioner for a second time based on the same facts, after his earlier acquittal, is barred by the principle of double jeopardy under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the supplementary charge sheet in Special Case No. 78 of 2013 and the process issued by the trial court, holding that the second prosecution is barred by double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Double jeopardy
- Section 300 CrPC
- Article 20(2) Constitution
- autrefois acquit
- sanction for prosecution
- quashing of charge sheet
