Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Kailashpati Upadhya & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Gopi Koeri - Respondent
Decided On : 08-03-1929
Double Jeopardy - Criminal Law - The court held that the petitioners should not be again tried in respect of the same matter since that would involve punishment twice over for the same offence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an order issuing processes against them under section 323, as they had already been tried and convicted for an offence under the Railways Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners should not be again tried for the same matter, as it would result in punishment twice over for the same offence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could be tried again for an offence arising out of the same facts for which they had already been convicted at a former trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered that the accused had already been punished indirectly for the same matter and should not be subjected to double jeopardy.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and set aside the order complained of, preventing the petitioners from being tried again for the same offence.
JUDGMENT
1. This rule was issued to show cause why the order of the learned District Magistrate of Howrah rejecting the application made by the petitioners for the quashing of an order issuing processes against them u/s 323 should not be set aside. The main ground urged is that the petitioners had already previously been tried for an offence under the Railways Act and had been convicted and fined, and that being so, they ought not to be again placed in peril in respect of another offence arising out of the same facts for which they might have been tried and convicted at the former trial. The trying Magistrate relying upon Section 403(2) Cri P.C. held that the trial was competent and the learned District Magistrate has endorsed that view. The point involved is not altogether free from doubt; but we do not think that we are called upon to decide it in this case inasmuch as it seems to be clear that while there was no charge of assault in the previous case, and which the accused were not on that occasion asked to plead in respect of that offence, the Court nevertheless took into accounted the fact that the accused had committed an assault upon the complainant, and in consideration thereof inflicted heavier fines upon them than upon the other two accused who had not committed any assault. That being so, we do not think that it would be just or proper that the petitioners having already been punished although indirectly on this account, should be again tried in respect of the same matter since that would involve punishment twice over for the same offence. In this view of the case we make the rule absolute and set aside the order complained of.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
