Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Sabeel Ahmed @ Motu Doctor, was accused No.21 in Special Case No.378/2021 pending before the Special Court for NIA cases, Bengaluru. He filed an application under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking discharge on the ground of autrefois acquit, claiming that he had already been acquitted in a previous case (Spl.C.C.No.155/2013) arising from the same FIR (Crime No.384/2012). The Special Court dismissed his application by order dated 19.08.2023, leading him to file the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court examined the facts: the FIR was registered for offences under Sections 153A, 121A, 120B, 121 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 23, 38, 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The petitioner was previously tried in Spl.C.C.No.155/2013 along with other accused for conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India and other offences, and was acquitted. However, the present case (Spl.C.No.378/2021) involves a different conspiracy and different accused, and the charges are not identical. The court held that Section 300 Cr.P.C. bars a second trial for the same offence, not for a distinct offence. The principle of autrefois acquit applies only when the subsequent trial is for the same offence or for an offence that was the subject of the previous trial. Since the offences in the present case are distinct and the conspiracy alleged is different, the petitioner cannot claim discharge. The court also noted that Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which protects against double jeopardy, is not attracted as the present case involves different offences. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Special Court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 300 - Autrefois Acquit - Principle of double jeopardy - Petitioner sought discharge on ground of previous acquittal in a connected case - Held that Section 300 Cr.P.C. bars a second trial for the same offence, not for a distinct offence arising from a different conspiracy - Previous acquittal in a case involving different accused and different charges does not entitle discharge in a separate case (Paras 1-10). B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Conspiracy - Distinct offences - Petitioner was acquitted in a case under UAPA for conspiracy to wage war, but the present case involves a different conspiracy under IPC and UAPA - Held that the offences are distinct and not the same as those for which he was acquitted - Therefore, Section 300 Cr.P.C. does not apply (Paras 5-10). C) Constitution of India - Article 20(2) - Double Jeopardy - Protection against double jeopardy applies only when a person is prosecuted and punished for the same offence again - Since the present case involves different offences, Article 20(2) is not attracted (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, accused No.21 in Spl.C.No.378/2021, is entitled to discharge under Section 300 Cr.P.C. on the ground of autrefois acquit, having been previously acquitted in a different case arising from the same FIR?
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The order dated 19.08.2023 passed by the 49th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA cases), Bengaluru, in Spl.C.No.378/2021 is upheld.
Law Points
- Section 300 Cr.P.C.
- principle of autrefois acquit
- double jeopardy
- Article 20(2) Constitution of India
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
- 1967
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- conspiracy
- distinct offences
- previous acquittal
