The central legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of double jeopardy applies when a person has been prosecuted and punished for the same offence, and the disciplinary actions taken against a prisoner may not necessarily constitute double jeopardy.

V.K. Tahilramani, J.

Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2010, he was released on furlough on 19.11.2010. He had to surrender on 4.12.2010, however, on 1.11.2012, when he was going to surrender to the prison, he met with an accident and therefore he was disoriented and could not report back to the prison. Thus, there was overstay of 674 days. On account of this, his remission has been cut. Further it is the case of the petitioner that earlier he was appointed to the post of convict overseer, however, after he came back to the prison, he was not reappointed to the post of convict overseer. Thus, it the case of the petitioner that he was punished twice for the same offence i.e. for overstay while he was on furlough.

4. The petitioner had to surrender on 4.12.2010, however, the case of the petitioner is that he was going to surrender to the prison on 1.11.2012 when he met with an accident. This is after about two years from the date, when he had to actually surrender back to the prison. There is no explanation for these two years why the petitioner did not report back to the prison on his own. In fact, he was arrested by the police in two other cases i.e. C.R. No. 14/2012 of Vita Police Station and C.R. No. 3104/2012 of Karad Police Station. After being arrested in C.R. No. 14/2012, he was brought back to the prison. Had the police not arrested the petitioner, the petitioner would have continued to remain outside and not reported back to the prison.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is being punished twice which cannot be allowed. She claimed that it is a case of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. She submitted that on account of overstay, his remission was cut and in addition, he was removed from the post of overseer. Hence, according to her, it is clearly a case of double punishment i.e. double jeopardy. She also relied upon Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that it is a case of double punishment in the sense that for the overstay, punishment was imposed of cutting of remission. In addition, he was removed from the post of overseer. Thus, the petitioner has been doubly punished which is in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and which cannot be allowed under Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Double jeopardy is a concept which would amount to violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and it is also barred under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On going through the provisions of Article 20(2), as well as Section 300, we find that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit therefrom. We are of the opinion that it is not a case of double jeopardy. The only condition precedent for application of the principle of double jeopardy is that the person concerned has been prosecuted and punished for the same offence. Article 20(2) reads as under:-

"20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences :-

(1) ....................

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once;

(3) ................... "

The Apex Court in the case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, 1953 (Cri. L.J. 1432 : 2010 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 294 held that the words "before a Court of law or judicial tribunal" are not to be found in Article 20(2), yet in order to invoke the protection of Article 20(2), there must have been a prosecution and punishment in respect of the same offence before a Court of Law or Tribunal, required by law to decide the matters in controversy judicially on evidence on oath which it must be authorised by law to administer. The Article contemplates proceedings of criminal nature before a Court of law in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the statute which creates the offence and regulates the procedure. It was also held that Articl