Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 19428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
P. M. Raval, J
DR. V. NANDGOPALV/sCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 20774 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Megha M Dave
For the Respondents: R.C. Kodekar, Rohan Shah
Claims of double jeopardy involving disputed questions of fact regarding whether two prosecutions arise from the same transaction cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition, especially when a substantive appeal against the conviction is already pending.
Headnote:The applicant sought the quashing of a conviction judgment dated 31.12.2009 passed in Special Case No. 8/2001 under Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant contended that on the same date, he was acquitted in another case (SP.CBI/24/2002) involving identical allegations regarding the purchase of scientific gadgets for the National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh, and the receipt of kickbacks. The court found that the determination of whether the charges were identical is a matter of evidence and a disputed question of fact. The primary issue was whether the prosecution in the second case amounted to double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the CrPC. The court reasoned that such factual disputes cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition, particularly when a substantive criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 141/2010) is already pending before the court to address the merits of the conviction. the captioned application stands disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's claim of double jeopardy under art 20(2) and s 300 crpc based on identical allegations in two separate cases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondent's contention that offences are distinct due to different accused and charges. (Para 6) |
| 3. factual disputes regarding 'same offence' cannot be decided in quashing petitions when an appeal is pending. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
##PAGE1##
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20774/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
0.6213096504508921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 20774 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DR. V. NANDGOPAL
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MEGHA M DAVE(8115) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
ROHAN SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 17/06/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Megha M Dave for the
Applicant, Learned Special PP Mr. R.C. Kodekar for the
Respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate APP for the Respondent
State.
2. The present application has been filed by the Applicant for
quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated
31.12.2009 passed in Special Case No. 8/2001 by the Court of
Special Judge, CBI Court No. 3, at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad (Exh.
248), whereby the learned Court had convicted the Applicant for
the alleged offence under Section 120B of the IPC, Section 7 and
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jun 17 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 08:28:05 IST 2026
##PAGE2##NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20774/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
0.6213096504508921
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(2)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, mainly on the ground that the impugned
judgment of conviction was passed in the present matter on
31.12.2009, and on the very same date another judgment was
passed in another case i.e. SP.CBI/24/2002 wherein exactly
identical allegations were levelled against the present Applicant.
However, in SP.CBI/24/2002 the Applicant herein was acquitted.
Thus, it is argued that the Applicant could not have been tried for
the same offence.
3. It is further contended that there is a bar to prosecute in
another case when the present Applicant is already prosecuted
for the same offence, in the same set of facts. Thus, prosecution
in the second case amounts to double jeopardy and would be a
breach of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. It is also
further contended that Section 300 of the CrPC is also based on
the same principle. Thus, it is contended that Article 20(2)
expressly provides that no person shall be prosecuted or
punished for the same offence more than once. The protection
against double jeopardy is also supplemented by statutory
provisions contained in Section 300 CrPC, Section 40 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 71 of the IPC, and Section 26 of the
4. It is submitted that the term “same offence” means that
where the offences are not distinct and the ingredients of the
offences are identical, and where there are two distinct offences
made up of different ingredients, only then the embargo under
Article 20 would have no application. It would further be
contended that the offence is the same in the present matter as
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jun 17 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 08:28:05 IST 2026
##PAGE3##NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20774/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
0.6213096504508921
well as SP. CBI/24/2002. It is so because, according to the facts of
both cases, the applicant had purchased scientific
gadgets/equipment for the National Research Centre for
Groundnut (NRCG), Junagadh,
