Chapter XXIV
Section 300 CrPC: Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence
New Law Update (2024)
Section 330 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Sub-Section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under Sub-Section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under Sub-Section (1) of section 220.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 300(1)
This sub-section lays down the fundamental rule against double jeopardy, stating that once a person has been tried by a competent court and either convicted or acquitted of an offence, they cannot be tried again for the same offence or for certain other offences based on the same facts, as long as the initial conviction or acquittal remains valid.
Section 300(4)
This sub-section provides an important exception to the rule, allowing a subsequent trial for a different offence arising from the same acts, even after an acquittal or conviction, if the court that conducted the first trial was not legally competent to try the offence for which the person is subsequently charged.
Landmark Judgements
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953):
This landmark case established that the protection against double jeopardy, as enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC, applies only when a person has been tried and punished by a competent judicial tribunal. It clarified that departmental or quasi-judicial proceedings do not constitute a ‘prosecution’ for the purpose of this constitutional safeguard.
S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954):
The Supreme Court held that for the bar of double jeopardy to operate, the previous prosecution must have been for the “same offence.” It emphasized that if the ingredients of the two offences are distinct, a prior acquittal or conviction for one will not bar a subsequent trial for the other, even if some facts overlap.
Monica Bedi v. State of A.P. (2011):
This judgment reaffirmed that Section 300 CrPC prevents a person from being tried again for an offence for which they have already been tried and acquitted or convicted. The Court reiterated that the crucial test for applying the doctrine of ‘Autrefois acquit’ or ‘Autrefois convict’ is whether the ingredients of the two offences are identical or substantially similar.