Double jeopardy is prohibited by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. A person cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 41 of the. West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 and sentencing him to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -. In default of payment he was to undergo a further period of six weeks' rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) THE complainant was the tenant of a room used as a shop which he held from the petitioner. The case for the complainant was that as the tenant of the shop he had a right to use a certain privy and water from a tap. It is said that the petitioner had not for about six months allowed him access to the privy or allowed him to take water from the tap. Therefore, it is said, an offence under Section 41 of the Rent Control Act, 1950 had been committed.

( 3 ) IT is clear that proceedings had been taken earlier in the court of the Rent Controller under Section 34 of the Rent Control Act, 1950 and the petitioner had been fined by the Rent Controller.

( 4 ) BEFORE the learned Magistrate it was contended that the offence with which he was charged in the criminal court was the same as that with which he was charged before the Rent Controller and that he could not be punished twice for the same offence. The learned magistrate rejected the plea and convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as I have indicated.

( 5 ) SECTION 34 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 provides for penalties for the disturbance of easements. The section in so far as it is material reads:"whoever, in any case in which an order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises is prohibited under Section 12, without the previous written consent of the Controller, or save for the purpose of effecting repairs or complying with any municipal requisition, wilfully disturbs any easement annexed to such premises, or removes, destroys, or renders unserviceable, anything provided for permanent use therewith, or discontinues any supply or service comprised in the tenancy of such premises, shall on the complaint of the party aggrieved, be liable, on the first occasion, to a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and on a second or subsequent occasion in regard to the same or any other premises, to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees to be imposed, after inquiry by the Controller. "

( 6 ) SECTION 41 of the Act is as follows:"1. No landlord either himself or through any person purporting to act on his behalf shall without just or sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the premises let to him. 2. Any landlord who contravenes the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall, on conviction in a Criminal Court, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. "

( 7 ) TO this section there is an explanation:". . . essential supply or service includes supply of water, electricity, lights in passages and on stair cases, lifts and conservancy or sanitary service. "

( 8 ) MR. Sudhansu Mukherjee in the first place has argued that there really was no evidence that the right to use this privy and water tap was included in the tenancy; and that would appear to be so. There was no attempt to prove an easement by long user and it is somewhat difficult to appreciate how the tenant had a right. He may have been allowed for some years but that would only make him a licensee. Of course if by the terms of the tenancy he was entitled to use the privy and the water tap different considerations would apply. But there does not seem to be any definite evidence of that. At most the evidence is that he used them. Mere user for a period less than the statutory period would not amount to acquisition of an easement. This aspect of the case does not appear to have been enquired into with any care. It seems to have been accepted that bec