Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional basis under Article 20(2):
1. Article 20(2) does not bar a second trial if the first trial resulted in an acquittal, as the protection is limited to cases of prior conviction.
2. The doctrine of autrefois convict, which forms the basis of Article 20(2), prevents a second trial for the same offence if the first trial resulted in a conviction.
3. The constitutional guarantee under Article 20(2) applies only when the accused has been both prosecuted and punished in the first instance.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Article 20(2) incorporates the principle of 'autrefois convict,' which mandates that protection against double jeopardy is available only if the accused has been both prosecuted and punished in a court of law or judicial tribunal for the same offence. Consequently, if the first trial resulted in an acquittal or if the proceedings were not before a court of competent jurisdiction, a second trial is not barred, making all three statements legally accurate under the interpretation established by the Supreme Court in cases like Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review of administrative penalties vs criminal punishment:
1. In the case of Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958), the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a penalty by the Customs authorities precludes the state from initiating criminal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code.
2. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, extends the protection of double jeopardy to include proceedings before quasi-judicial bodies, thereby preventing subsequent criminal prosecution for the same set of facts.
3. The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure incorporates the doctrine of autrefois convict, which allows for a second trial if the initial administrative penalty imposed by a departmental authority is found to be insufficient by the High Court.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC apply only to successive criminal prosecutions before a court of law or judicial tribunal, not to departmental or administrative proceedings. In Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958), the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that Customs authorities are not a court or judicial tribunal, meaning administrative penalties do not bar subsequent criminal prosecution. Furthermore, Section 300 of the CrPC does not extend to quasi-judicial bodies, and the doctrine of autrefois convict does not permit a second trial based on the perceived insufficiency of an administrative penalty.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial interpretation of 'punished' in double jeopardy:
1. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
2. In the Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) case, the Supreme Court held that the 'prosecution' must be a proceeding before a court or a judicial tribunal.
3. The protection against double jeopardy under Indian law is limited to cases where the person has been punished by a court of law or a judicial tribunal for the same offence.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 20(2) enshrines the doctrine of 'autrefois convict', prohibiting dual punishment for the same offence. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) clarified that 'prosecution' necessitates a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or departmental inquiries like customs confiscation. Statement 3 is correct as the protection is strictly limited to judicial proceedings; therefore, departmental or administrative penalties do not constitute double jeopardy, confirming that no statements are false.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to departmental or administrative inquiries:
1. The principle of 'autrefois convict' is a foundational element of the protection afforded under Article 20(2), which prevents a second trial for an offence where a person has already been convicted by a competent court.
2. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, incorporates the principle of double jeopardy and applies to both judicial verdicts and administrative sanctions imposed by statutory regulatory bodies.
3. The ruling in Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) held that an inquiry before an Inquiry Commissioner under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act is a judicial proceeding, thus triggering the constitutional bar against multiple punishments.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 20(2) embodies the principle of 'autrefois convict,' ensuring no person is prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once before a court of law. Statement 2 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC applies only to judicial trials, not to administrative or departmental inquiries. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) explicitly ruled that an inquiry before an Inquiry Commissioner is not a prosecution for an offence, meaning departmental proceedings do not constitute double jeopardy under Article 20(2).
Consider the following statements regarding Evolution of the doctrine from common law to Indian Constitution:
1. The doctrine of autrefois convict and autrefois acquit represents the two foundational pillars upon which the protection against double jeopardy is constructed.
2. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution serves as a historical precursor to the incorporation of double jeopardy protections in modern democratic frameworks.
3. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, expands the scope of double jeopardy protection by preventing a second trial even if the person was acquitted in the first.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the doctrine of double jeopardy is rooted in the common law maxims of 'autrefois convict' (previously convicted) and 'autrefois acquit' (previously acquitted). Statement 2 is correct because the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly enshrines the protection that no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, serving as a global model for such safeguards. Statement 3 is correct because Section 300 of the CrPC, 1973, provides a broader statutory protection than Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, as it bars a second trial for the same offense regardless of whether the initial outcome was a conviction or an acquittal, provided the first court was competent to try the case.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'prosecution' and 'preventive detention:
1. The protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) is available only when the person has been prosecuted before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
2. Preventive detention is categorized under the punitive provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and the 1950 Supreme Court ruling in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras established that such detention qualifies as a second prosecution.
3. The principle of double jeopardy is derived from the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Indian judiciary incorporates this rule into the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 to ensure procedural fairness.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because Article 20(2) requires a formal trial before a court or judicial tribunal to invoke double jeopardy. Statement 2 is incorrect because preventive detention is a precautionary measure, not a punitive one under the IPC, and the A.K. Gopalan case actually held that preventive detention is distinct from criminal prosecution. Statement 3 is incorrect because the principle of double jeopardy in India is narrower than the American 'Fifth Amendment' protection, and it is not incorporated into the Preventive Detention Act, which is a separate legislative framework for state security.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional protection against self-incrimination linkage:
1. The 1950 Constitution of India incorporated the principle of Double Jeopardy from the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which applies to both civil and criminal proceedings.
2. The doctrine of 'autrefois convict' refers to a previous acquittal in a court of law, and it serves as the primary basis for the protection granted under Article 20(2) in the 1950 text.
3. Article 20(3) provides protection to witnesses during departmental inquiries, and the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure includes provisions for immunity during administrative investigations.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 20(2) is narrower than the US Fifth Amendment, applying only to criminal proceedings before a court or judicial tribunal, not civil cases. Statement 2 is incorrect because 'autrefois convict' refers to a previous conviction, not an acquittal ('autrefois acquit'), and Article 20(2) specifically requires both prosecution and punishment for the same offence. Statement 3 is incorrect as Article 20(3) protection against self-incrimination is limited to criminal proceedings and does not extend to departmental or administrative inquiries, nor does the CrPC provide such blanket immunity for administrative investigations.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to departmental or administrative inquiries:
1. The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) clarified that the protection against double jeopardy is limited to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
2. Departmental or administrative inquiries are distinct from criminal prosecutions, and therefore, the constitutional protection under Article 20(2) does not extend to disciplinary actions taken by an employer.
3. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Article 20(2) incorporates the principle of 'autrefois convict', which mandates that both prosecution and punishment must occur before a court of law or judicial tribunal, as established in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953). Consequently, departmental or administrative inquiries do not constitute criminal prosecution, meaning disciplinary actions by an employer do not trigger double jeopardy protection. All three statements are accurate as they correctly reflect the constitutional scope of Article 20(2) and the judicial precedents distinguishing judicial proceedings from administrative ones.
Consider the following statements regarding Requirement of prosecution and punishment:
1. Article 20(2) reflects the principles laid down in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which allows for retrial if the prosecution discovers new evidence after an acquittal.
2. The Law Commission of India in its 41st Report recommended that the protection against double jeopardy be expanded to include administrative penalties imposed by statutory regulatory bodies.
3. Proceedings before departmental or administrative authorities, such as customs officials, do not constitute prosecution within the meaning of Article 20(2).
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) held that 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) must be a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or departmental inquiries. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 20(2) is narrower than the US Fifth Amendment; the US doctrine includes 'double jeopardy' protection against retrial after acquittal, whereas Indian law requires a previous conviction, not just an acquittal. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 41st Law Commission Report did not recommend expanding the scope of Article 20(2) to include administrative penalties; rather, the constitutional protection remains strictly confined to judicial proceedings.
Consider the following statements regarding Requirement of prosecution and punishment:
1. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
2. The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) clarified that the protection applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
3. The doctrine of autrefois convict originates from the English common law principle that a person should not be placed in peril twice for the same act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 20(2) enshrines the principle of 'Double Jeopardy,' prohibiting multiple prosecutions and punishments for the same offence. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain (1953) held that departmental or administrative inquiries do not constitute a 'prosecution' before a court or judicial tribunal, thus falling outside the scope of Article 20(2). Statement 3 is correct as the doctrine of 'autrefois convict' is a foundational principle of English common law, ensuring that an individual is not subjected to legal peril twice for the same criminal act.
Consider the following statements regarding Scope of 'prosecution' under the Code of Criminal Procedure:
1. The protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) does not extend to departmental inquiries or administrative proceedings conducted by a public authority.
2. In the case of Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958), the court held that a customs confiscation proceeding is not a prosecution within the meaning of Article 20(2).
3. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applies to cases of continuing offences, permitting a second trial if the Magistrate finds that the subsequent act occurred within 30 days of the first conviction.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because Article 20(2) specifically requires a 'prosecution and punishment' before a court of law or judicial tribunal, excluding departmental or administrative disciplinary actions. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in Leo Roy Frey (1958) clarified that customs confiscation proceedings are in rem and do not constitute a criminal prosecution, thus falling outside the scope of double jeopardy. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC embodies the principle of 'autrefois convict' and 'autrefois acquit,' prohibiting a second trial for the same offence; it does not contain any provision allowing a second trial based on a 30-day window for continuing offences.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review of administrative penalties vs criminal punishment:
1. The Law Commission of India in its 41st Report suggested that administrative fines exceeding a specific monetary threshold should be treated as criminal convictions to prevent the state from pursuing parallel punitive actions.
2. The principle of res judicata is applied by the judiciary to administrative penalties, ensuring that any findings of fact in a departmental inquiry are binding upon criminal courts during subsequent trials for the same incident.
3. Article 20(2) was amended in 1976 to include a provision that allows for a second trial if the initial acquittal was based on technical grounds rather than a full examination of the evidence by a judicial magistrate.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect as the 41st Law Commission Report did not propose equating administrative fines with criminal convictions. Statement 2 is incorrect because the principle of res judicata does not apply between departmental inquiries and criminal trials; findings in a departmental inquiry are not binding on criminal courts, as the standards of proof differ significantly. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 20(2), which enshrines the protection against double jeopardy, has never been amended since the Constitution's inception, and the doctrine of 'autrefois acquit' does not permit a second trial based on the nature of the previous acquittal.
Consider the following statements regarding Meaning of 'Court of Law' or 'Judicial Tribunal:
1. The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) clarified that the protection against double jeopardy applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1961 case of Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab recognized the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act authorities as a judicial tribunal, thereby extending the protection of Article 20(2) to departmental adjudications.
3. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) established that 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) requires proceedings before a court or judicial tribunal. Statement 3 is correct as it accurately reflects the constitutional mandate of Article 20(2), which protects individuals from double jeopardy. Statement 2 is incorrect because, in Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab (1959), the Supreme Court held that administrative or departmental authorities (like Customs or FERA officials) are not 'courts or judicial tribunals,' meaning departmental proceedings do not constitute 'prosecution' for the purpose of invoking double jeopardy protection.
Consider the following statements regarding Meaning of 'Court of Law' or 'Judicial Tribunal:
1. Departmental inquiries conducted by administrative authorities do not fall under the definition of judicial proceedings as contemplated by the protection against double jeopardy.
2. The judgment in Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) established that proceedings before an Inquiry Commissioner under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act of 1850 do not amount to prosecution before a court.
3. The principle of autrefois convict implies that a person cannot be prosecuted for an offence if they have already been convicted for the same offence by a competent court.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Article 20(2) of the Constitution protects against double jeopardy only when a person is prosecuted and punished before a 'court of law' or 'judicial tribunal'; therefore, departmental inquiries are excluded as they lack the trappings of a judicial body. The Supreme Court in Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) clarified that proceedings under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, are merely administrative in nature and do not constitute 'prosecution' for the purposes of Article 20(2). Finally, the doctrine of autrefois convict is a foundational legal principle integrated into Article 20(2), ensuring that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Article 20(2) in protecting against retrial:
1. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
2. The principle of double jeopardy finds its roots in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which the Constituent Assembly adopted verbatim during the 1948 drafting sessions.
3. Article 20(2) encompasses protection against multiple punishments for the same offence, and it extends to civil litigation where a defendant faces repeated lawsuits for identical damages.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 20(2) enshrines the principle of 'autrefois convict', protecting individuals from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while inspired by common law principles, the Indian provision is narrower than the US Fifth Amendment, which includes 'autrefois acquit' (protection against retrial after acquittal), whereas Article 20(2) requires both a previous prosecution and a punishment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the protection under Article 20(2) is strictly limited to criminal proceedings before a court of law or judicial tribunal and does not extend to civil proceedings or departmental inquiries.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'prosecution' and 'preventive detention:
1. The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced the concept of preventive detention to limit the scope of Article 20, thereby aligning domestic law with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
2. Article 20(2) encompasses proceedings before both judicial courts and quasi-judicial tribunals, and the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure provides the framework for its application in civil litigation.
3. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as Article 20(2) enshrines the principle of 'double jeopardy,' protecting individuals from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Statement 1 is incorrect because preventive detention is not a product of the 44th Amendment but is explicitly provided for under Article 22, and it does not limit the scope of Article 20. Statement 2 is incorrect because the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal, not to departmental or administrative inquiries, and it is strictly limited to criminal proceedings, not civil litigation.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional protection against self-incrimination linkage:
1. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the trial of a person who has been previously convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction if new evidence emerges after the 1973 amendment.
2. The principle of Double Jeopardy is rooted in the common law maxim 'nemo debet bis vexari', which prevents a person from being put in peril twice for the same criminal act.
3. In the 1961 case of The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, the Supreme Court held that giving thumb impressions or DNA samples does not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC (now replaced by Section 337 of the BNSS) strictly prohibits the trial of a person for the same offence if they have already been convicted or acquitted by a competent court, regardless of new evidence. Statement 2 is correct as the doctrine of 'nemo debet bis vexari' is the foundational common law principle underlying Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, ensuring no person is prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) ruled that providing physical evidence like thumb impressions, signatures, or DNA samples is not 'testimonial compulsion' and thus does not violate the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship with Article 21 and due process:
1. The landmark ruling in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) established that the right against double jeopardy is a fundamental component of the due process of law as understood in the American legal tradition.
2. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, incorporates the doctrine of double jeopardy and extends its application to departmental inquiries conducted by public authorities.
3. The principle of autrefois convict is enshrined in Article 21, which serves as a procedural safeguard against the state re-opening cases that have reached a final judicial verdict in the High Courts.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) actually rejected the 'due process of law' doctrine, favoring the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21. Statement 2 is incorrect as Section 300 of the CrPC applies only to judicial proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction and does not extend to departmental or administrative inquiries. Statement 3 is incorrect because the protection against double jeopardy is specifically enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution, not Article 21, and it is limited to prosecution and punishment before a court of law or judicial tribunal.
Consider the following statements regarding Scope of 'prosecution' under the Code of Criminal Procedure:
1. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, incorporates the principle of autrefois acquit, preventing a second trial for the same offence after a previous acquittal.
2. The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) clarified that the term 'prosecution' implies a proceeding before a court or a judicial tribunal.
3. The Supreme Court ruling in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) established that an inquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, constitutes a criminal prosecution for the purposes of Article 20(2).
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 300 of the CrPC codifies the principle of autrefois acquit, ensuring that a person once acquitted or convicted cannot be tried again for the same offence. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain (1953) held that 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) requires a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or departmental inquiries. Statement 3 is incorrect because, in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954), the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that an inquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, is merely a departmental proceeding and does not constitute a criminal prosecution, thus failing to trigger the protection against double jeopardy.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial interpretation of 'punished' in double jeopardy:
1. The Supreme Court in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case established that departmental inquiries constitute a form of judicial prosecution for the purpose of Article 20(2).
2. The landmark ruling in Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) expanded the scope of double jeopardy to include proceedings before administrative bodies like the UPSC.
3. Under the General Clauses Act of 1897, Section 26 allows for the prosecution of an individual under two different enactments, provided the punishment is served concurrently.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras dealt with preventive detention, not departmental inquiries, and the Court has consistently held that departmental inquiries are not 'prosecutions' under Article 20(2). Statement 2 is incorrect as the Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) ruling explicitly clarified that proceedings before administrative tribunals or bodies like the UPSC do not constitute 'prosecution' for the purpose of double jeopardy. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, provides that where an act constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, the offender shall not be punished twice for the same offence, rather than allowing concurrent punishment.
Consider the following statements regarding Concept of 'Same Offence' vs 'Same Transaction:
1. The principle of 'same offence' includes distinct charges arising from a single criminal conspiracy, as interpreted by the Law Commission in its 41st Report regarding the expansion of judicial review in criminal trials.
2. In the case of S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954), the court held that departmental or administrative inquiries do not constitute prosecution for the purpose of double jeopardy protection.
3. The Supreme Court judgment in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) extended the protection of double jeopardy to include preventive detention orders issued by executive authorities under the Preventive Detention Act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) ruled that Article 20(2) applies only to judicial proceedings before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding departmental inquiries. Statement 1 is incorrect because the principle of 'same offence' (autrefois convict) requires that the second trial be for the exact same offence, not merely a different charge arising from the same transaction. Statement 3 is incorrect because the A.K. Gopalan case dealt with fundamental rights and preventive detention, but the Supreme Court has consistently held that preventive detention is not a 'prosecution' or 'punishment' for an offence, thus falling outside the scope of double jeopardy protection.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to tax penalty proceedings:
1. In the case of Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958), the court held that customs authorities imposing penalties under the Sea Customs Act are not courts of law.
2. The Supreme Court ruling in R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills (1977) expanded the scope of Article 20(2) to include quasi-judicial tax tribunals, thereby preventing concurrent civil and criminal liability.
3. The Supreme Court judgment in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) established that departmental or administrative inquiries do not constitute prosecution for the purpose of Article 20(2).
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statements 1 and 3 are correct as the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain (1953) and Leo Roy Frey (1958) clarified that departmental proceedings by customs authorities do not constitute 'prosecution' before a court of law or judicial tribunal, thus falling outside the scope of Article 20(2). Statement 2 is incorrect because the R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills (1977) judgment actually held that tax penalties are remedial and civil in nature, explicitly rejecting the expansion of Article 20(2) to prevent concurrent civil and criminal liability for tax-related offences.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'Double Jeopardy' and 'Res Judicata:
1. The protection against double jeopardy is available to foreign nationals under the Citizenship Act of 1955, and it prevents the initiation of departmental inquiries following a criminal acquittal for the same act.
2. Res Judicata operates as a bar to subsequent proceedings in criminal trials, ensuring that the findings of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure are binding upon the appellate authorities in civil litigation.
3. The doctrine of Autrefois Convict is a common law principle recognized under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which serves to protect individuals from being tried for the same offence in both civil and criminal jurisdictions.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 20(2) protection is limited to 'citizens' and applies only to judicial proceedings, not departmental inquiries. Statement 2 is incorrect as Res Judicata is a civil law principle under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, preventing the re-litigation of issues in civil courts, whereas criminal trials are governed by the principle of 'Autrefois Acquit/Convict'. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 20(3) pertains to the prohibition against self-incrimination, while the doctrine of Autrefois Convict is covered under Article 20(2) and applies strictly to criminal proceedings, not civil jurisdictions.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to contempt of court proceedings:
1. Article 20(2) encompasses protection against double jeopardy in administrative inquiries, and the 1976 Forty-Second Amendment extended this coverage to include departmental disciplinary proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court ruling in the 1991 Delhi Judicial Service Association case refers to the inherent powers of the court, and it established that contempt proceedings fall under the definition of criminal prosecution in the Seventh Schedule.
3. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides for the plea of autrefois acquit, and the 2005 amendment to this section clarified that contempt of court is a trial-based offence subject to double jeopardy protection.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 20(2) applies only to proceedings before a court of law or judicial tribunal, explicitly excluding departmental or administrative inquiries. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Supreme Court has consistently held that contempt proceedings are sui generis and do not constitute 'criminal prosecution' for the purposes of Article 20(2) or the Seventh Schedule. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC does not apply to contempt of court, and no 2005 amendment established contempt as a trial-based offense subject to double jeopardy protection.
Consider the following statements regarding Requirement of prosecution and punishment:
1. The protection under Article 20(2) is available to both citizens and non-citizens, including foreign nationals present within the territory of India.
2. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, incorporates the principle of double jeopardy by preventing a second trial for the same offence.
3. The landmark judgment in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) established that the protection against double jeopardy extends to both criminal prosecutions and civil recovery suits.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because Article 20(2) applies to any 'person,' extending protection to both citizens and non-citizens. Statement 2 is correct as Section 300 of the CrPC reinforces the constitutional guarantee by ensuring a person cannot be tried again for the same offence if previously acquitted or convicted. Statement 3 is incorrect because the protection against double jeopardy is strictly limited to criminal proceedings before a court of law or judicial tribunal and does not extend to civil suits or departmental inquiries.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'prosecution' and 'preventive detention:
1. Preventive detention is authorized under Article 22 of the Constitution, which functions as a regulatory measure rather than a punitive criminal prosecution.
2. The doctrine of autrefois convict, which forms the basis of Article 20(2), does not extend to proceedings before administrative authorities or executive bodies.
3. The Supreme Court in the Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) case clarified that departmental inquiries do not constitute prosecution for the purpose of double jeopardy.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct because Article 22 provides the constitutional framework for preventive detention as a precautionary measure to prevent future harm, distinct from the punitive nature of criminal prosecution. Statement 2 is correct as the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) is strictly limited to 'prosecution and punishment' before a court of law or a judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or departmental proceedings. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) established that 'prosecution' requires a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, thereby excluding departmental inquiries or customs authorities from the scope of double jeopardy protection.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional basis under Article 20(2):
1. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
2. The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) clarified that departmental inquiries do not constitute prosecution for the purpose of Article 20(2).
3. The protection against double jeopardy is available only in proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Article 20(2) enshrines the principle of 'double jeopardy,' ensuring that no person is prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) established that 'prosecution' must be a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, thereby excluding departmental or administrative inquiries from this protection. Consequently, the protection is strictly limited to judicial proceedings, meaning subsequent departmental disciplinary actions for the same act do not violate this constitutional guarantee.
Consider the following statements regarding Scope of 'Autrefois Convict' principle:
1. In the case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953), the Supreme Court clarified that the proceeding must be before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
2. The doctrine of 'Autrefois Convict' is rooted in the common law principle that a person should not be placed in peril twice for the same act.
3. The protection under Article 20(2) does not extend to departmental inquiries or administrative proceedings, as these are not considered prosecution before a court.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct. In Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953), the Supreme Court established that 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) requires a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, thereby excluding administrative or departmental inquiries. The doctrine of 'Autrefois Convict' is a fundamental common law principle ensuring that no individual faces double jeopardy for the same offense, a protection enshrined in the Indian Constitution to prevent harassment through repeated trials.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to contempt of court proceedings:
1. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, prevents double punishment for the same act or omission if it constitutes an offence under two or more enactments.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1961 case of Sukhdev Singh v. Hon'ble C.J.S. Teja Singh held that contempt proceedings are not in the nature of criminal prosecution for the purpose of Article 20(2).
3. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 26 of the General Clauses Act explicitly bars double punishment for the same act under different laws. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh (1961) ruled that contempt proceedings are sui generis and do not constitute 'prosecution' under Article 20(2), which requires a formal criminal trial. Statement 3 is correct as it accurately paraphrases the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy provided under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional protection against self-incrimination linkage:
1. The Supreme Court ruling in the 1954 Nandini Satpathy case expanded the scope of Article 20(3) to include protection for individuals during police interrogation and private civil litigation.
2. The protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) is available to a person accused of an offence and extends to both oral and documentary evidence.
3. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while the 1978 Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani case expanded Article 20(3) to cover police interrogations, it does not extend to private civil litigation. Statement 2 is correct as Article 20(3) protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against themselves, encompassing both oral and documentary evidence. Statement 3 is correct because Article 20(2) enshrines the doctrine of 'Double Jeopardy,' ensuring that no person is prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship with Article 21 and due process:
1. The Law Commission of India, in its 154th Report, recommended the expansion of Article 20(2) to include protection against multiple punishments for the same act under different statutes, such as the IPC and the IT Act.
2. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once, forming the basis of the protection against double jeopardy.
3. Article 20(2) encompasses the principle of res judicata in civil litigation, ensuring that parties are protected from repetitive lawsuits regarding the same property dispute.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as Article 20(2) enshrines the doctrine of 'double jeopardy', specifically prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of a person for the same offence more than once. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 154th Law Commission Report focused on the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Article 20(2) is strictly limited to criminal proceedings before a court of law or judicial tribunal, not multiple statutes. Statement 3 is incorrect because the principle of res judicata is a civil law doctrine derived from the Code of Civil Procedure (Section 11), whereas Article 20(2) is a fundamental right exclusively applicable to criminal prosecution.
Consider the following statements regarding Status of acquittal versus conviction in protection:
1. Article 20(2) operates in tandem with Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which allows for the prosecution of an offender under multiple enactments provided the punishment is served concurrently rather than consecutively.
2. The Law Commission of India in its 41st Report suggested that the protection against double jeopardy should encompass both acquittal and conviction to align Indian jurisprudence with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
3. The principle of res judicata in civil litigation is often conflated with the constitutional protection of Article 20(2), leading to the inclusion of civil liability claims within the scope of double jeopardy protections since the 42nd Amendment.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 26 of the General Clauses Act prevents double punishment for the same offense, not concurrent prosecution. Statement 2 is incorrect as the 41st Law Commission Report did not propose expanding Article 20(2) to include acquittal; Indian law restricts double jeopardy strictly to cases where the accused was previously convicted. Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 20(2) applies exclusively to criminal proceedings before a court or judicial tribunal, and the 42nd Amendment did not extend its scope to civil liability.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of departmental disciplinary proceedings:
1. The Supreme Court ruling in Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) held that an inquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, is a criminal proceeding that precludes a second trial for the same misconduct.
2. Article 20(2) incorporates the English common law doctrine of res judicata, which allows civil servants to challenge departmental punishments in criminal courts based on the principle of double jeopardy.
3. Under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, a departmental inquiry functions as a judicial tribunal, thereby triggering the bar against subsequent criminal prosecution for the same act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of double jeopardy, applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal, not departmental inquiries. In Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954), the Supreme Court clarified that a departmental inquiry is not a criminal proceeding, and thus, punishment therein does not bar a subsequent criminal trial for the same misconduct. Furthermore, Article 20(2) is based on the principle of 'autrefois convict' rather than the civil law doctrine of 'res judicata', and departmental inquiries under the CCS (CCA) Rules do not constitute a judicial tribunal for the purposes of invoking constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'Double Jeopardy' and 'Res Judicata:
1. Double jeopardy protection is applicable to proceedings before administrative tribunals, as established by the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985, which aligns the standard of proof with that of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. The rule against double jeopardy finds its origin in the Magna Carta of 1215, and it serves as a procedural safeguard that prohibits the state from appealing an acquittal in a criminal case regardless of the court hierarchy.
3. The principle of issue estoppel is a subset of Article 20(2), and it allows for the reopening of a case if new evidence emerges after the Supreme Court delivers a final judgment under Article 142.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 20(2) applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal, not administrative bodies. Statement 2 is incorrect as the rule against double jeopardy is rooted in the common law maxim 'nemo debet bis vexari' and does not prohibit the state from appealing an acquittal, which is permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Statement 3 is incorrect because issue estoppel is a distinct judicial doctrine, and Article 142 powers cannot be used to circumvent the constitutional protection against double jeopardy or reopen cases finalized by a competent court.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Article 20(2) in protecting against retrial:
1. The Indian Penal Code of 1860 contains Section 300, which serves as the primary statutory basis for double jeopardy and operates independently of the constitutional safeguards found in Part III.
2. Protection against retrial is available to both citizens and foreign nationals, and it includes immunity from being tried by a court-martial if the individual has already faced a civil criminal trial for the same act.
3. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 300 provides for the doctrine of autrefois acquit, which functions as a legislative expansion of Article 20(2) to include protection against administrative disciplinary actions.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC (not IPC) provides statutory protection, which is supplementary to, not independent of, the constitutional guarantee under Article 20(2). Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 20(2) specifically requires a previous conviction by a court of law or judicial tribunal; it does not protect against departmental or administrative disciplinary proceedings, nor does it strictly bar a court-martial if the prior trial was not before a court of competent jurisdiction. Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC does not extend to administrative or departmental inquiries, and the doctrine of autrefois acquit applies only to judicial trials, not administrative actions.
Consider the following statements regarding Evolution of the doctrine from common law to Indian Constitution:
1. The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) clarified that the protection applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
2. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
3. The principle of double jeopardy finds its origins in the English common law maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
All three statements are correct: Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) established that 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) requires a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding departmental or administrative inquiries. Article 20(2) explicitly codifies the protection against double jeopardy, ensuring no person is prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Finally, the doctrine is rooted in the English common law maxim 'nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa,' which translates to 'no one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause'.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to tax penalty proceedings:
1. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, contains a provision that bars the Enforcement Directorate from pursuing a penalty if the accused has already paid the tax interest determined by the Assessing Officer.
2. The legal principle of autrefois convict implies that a person cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once, provided the first trial occurred in a competent jurisdiction.
3. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, extends the protection against double jeopardy to trials conducted by criminal courts, building upon the constitutional guarantee in Article 20.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as 'autrefois convict' is a common law principle enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution, preventing multiple prosecutions for the same offense. Statement 3 is correct because Section 300 of the CrPC codifies the constitutional protection of double jeopardy, ensuring that a person acquitted or convicted by a competent court cannot be tried again for the same facts. Statement 1 is incorrect because the PMLA is a distinct criminal statute independent of tax proceedings under the Income Tax Act; paying tax penalties does not grant immunity from prosecution for money laundering, as these are separate legal proceedings with different objectives.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to departmental or administrative inquiries:
1. Under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1965, an employee facing a criminal conviction is entitled to claim the double jeopardy defense to prevent the initiation of subsequent internal disciplinary proceedings.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced specific clauses to Article 20, which extended the scope of double jeopardy protection to include departmental inquiries conducted by public sector undertakings.
3. The judgment in Union of India v. P.D. Yadav (2002) established that departmental proceedings are equivalent to criminal trials, thereby bringing administrative penalties under the ambit of Article 20(2).
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution is strictly limited to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal, and it does not apply to departmental or administrative inquiries. Statement 1 is false as departmental proceedings are distinct from criminal trials and can proceed independently even after a criminal conviction. Statement 2 is false because the 42nd Amendment did not alter Article 20(2) to include departmental inquiries. Statement 3 is false as the Supreme Court has consistently held in various rulings, including Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, that departmental proceedings do not constitute 'prosecution' within the meaning of Article 20(2), meaning administrative penalties are not barred by prior criminal acquittal or conviction.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional basis under Article 20(2):
1. The principle of double jeopardy under the Indian Constitution is narrower in scope than the American doctrine of double jeopardy, which includes protection against a second trial after an acquittal.
2. In the case of Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954), the Supreme Court held that a proceeding before a Commissioner appointed under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, is not a prosecution.
3. The protection afforded by Article 20(2) is a fundamental right that cannot be suspended even during the operation of a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 359.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct because Article 20(2) only protects against a second punishment for the same offence after conviction, whereas the American doctrine also covers 'autrefois acquit' (protection after acquittal). Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court ruled in Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) that departmental inquiries are not 'prosecutions' before a court or judicial tribunal, thus not attracting double jeopardy. Statement 3 is correct because the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 amended Article 359 to ensure that the enforcement of rights under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during a national emergency.
Consider the following statements regarding Scope of 'prosecution' under the Code of Criminal Procedure:
1. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India mirrors the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which covers both civil litigation and criminal proceedings under the double jeopardy clause.
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, follows the English common law doctrine of autrefois convict, which allows for a second trial if the initial conviction was overturned by a High Court.
3. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as Article 20(2) enshrines the principle of 'double jeopardy', ensuring a person is not prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Statement 1 is incorrect because, unlike the US Fifth Amendment which covers both civil and criminal proceedings, Article 20(2) is narrower and applies exclusively to criminal proceedings before a court of law or judicial tribunal. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine of 'autrefois convict' under Section 300 of the CrPC bars a second trial for the same offence if the accused has already been convicted or acquitted by a competent court, regardless of whether the conviction was overturned by a High Court.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial interpretation of 'punished' in double jeopardy:
1. Article 20(2) reflects the principle of 'autrefois convict' found in the English common law system, which the Constituent Assembly adopted from the Government of India Act 1935.
2. In the case of Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958), the court determined that the confiscation of goods by customs authorities qualifies as a punishment under Article 20(2).
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 300, incorporates the doctrine of double jeopardy and applies it to both civil disputes and criminal trials.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 20(2) is based on the American principle of 'double jeopardy' rather than the English 'autrefois convict', and it was not derived from the Government of India Act 1935. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Supreme Court held in Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958) that proceedings before customs authorities are not 'prosecution' before a court or judicial tribunal, and confiscation of goods does not constitute punishment for the purpose of Article 20(2). Statement 3 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC applies exclusively to criminal trials and does not extend to civil disputes.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of departmental disciplinary proceedings:
1. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mirrors the constitutional protection against double jeopardy by barring a second trial for the same offence.
2. The principle of 'autrefois convict' prevents a person from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once, provided the initial proceeding occurred in a court of competent jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court in the Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) case clarified that departmental inquiries do not constitute prosecution for the purpose of Article 20(2).
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Section 300 of the CrPC codifies the principle of 'autrefois acquit' and 'autrefois convict', complementing the constitutional guarantee under Article 20(2). Statement 2 is correct because the doctrine of 'autrefois convict' mandates that a prior conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction serves as a bar to subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain (1953) established that 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) requires a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, thereby excluding departmental or administrative inquiries from the scope of double jeopardy protection.
Consider the following statements regarding Concept of 'Same Offence' vs 'Same Transaction:
1. The concept of 'same offence' under Article 20(2) implies that the ingredients of the two offences must be identical, as established in the case of Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958).
2. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allows for a second trial for the same offence if the prosecution discovers new forensic evidence that was unavailable during the initial 1973 proceedings.
3. The doctrine of 'same transaction' is codified under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which permits multiple trials if the acts are part of a continuous series of events occurring within 24 hours.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court in Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958) clarified that for Article 20(2) to apply, the ingredients of the two offences must be identical. Statement 2 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC (now Section 336 of BNSS) prohibits a second trial for the same offence once a person has been convicted or acquitted, regardless of the discovery of new evidence. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 'same transaction' doctrine is a principle of criminal procedure (Section 220 CrPC) and is not codified under Article 20(2), which strictly protects against double jeopardy for the 'same offence' only.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to tax penalty proceedings:
1. The Income Tax Act of 1961 incorporates the principle of double jeopardy by prohibiting the simultaneous initiation of civil recovery proceedings and criminal prosecution for the same tax evasion event.
2. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides protection against double jeopardy, limiting its application to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
3. The 1973 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced a specific clause under Section 300 that grants immunity from penalty proceedings for individuals already subjected to tax assessment fines.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because Article 20(2) of the Constitution specifically requires that the proceedings must be before a 'court of law or a judicial tribunal' to invoke the protection against double jeopardy. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Income Tax Act allows for both civil penalties and criminal prosecution to run concurrently for tax evasion, as these are considered distinct legal remedies. Statement 3 is incorrect because no such 1973 amendment exists under Section 300 of the CrPC to grant immunity from tax penalty proceedings based on assessment fines.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'Double Jeopardy' and 'Res Judicata:
1. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once, forming the basis of the protection against double jeopardy.
2. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, codifies the rule of double jeopardy and extends its application to include the dismissal of civil petitions involving identical parties and subject matter.
3. The principle of Res Judicata is incorporated under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which prevents the re-litigation of a matter that has already been adjudicated by a competent court.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 20(2) enshrines the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, while Statement 3 is correct because Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, mandates 'Res Judicata' to prevent the re-litigation of civil disputes already settled by a competent court. Statement 2 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC, 1973, is strictly limited to criminal proceedings (autrefois convict/acquit) and does not extend to civil petitions, which are governed by the distinct principle of Res Judicata.
Consider the following statements regarding Meaning of 'Court of Law' or 'Judicial Tribunal:
1. The Customs Authorities, while acting under the Sea Customs Act of 1878, were held by the Supreme Court not to constitute a court or judicial tribunal for the purposes of double jeopardy.
2. Under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the protection against double jeopardy encompasses proceedings before any statutory body, including those established under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.
3. In the context of Article 20(2), a judicial tribunal is defined as an authority invested with the judicial power of the state to adjudicate upon the rights of citizens.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953), the Supreme Court ruled that Customs Authorities are administrative bodies, not courts or judicial tribunals, thus their actions do not trigger double jeopardy. Statement 3 is correct as Article 20(2) requires a 'court of law' or 'judicial tribunal' to be an authority vested with the judicial power of the State to adjudicate rights. Statement 2 is incorrect because the protection under Article 20(2) is strictly limited to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal, and does not extend to proceedings before administrative or statutory bodies like those under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to foreign court convictions:
1. The principle of res judicata is applicable to criminal proceedings under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which prevents the re-litigation of facts already decided by a competent court in a foreign jurisdiction.
2. The Supreme Court judgment in the A.D.M. Jabalpur case (1976) established that the protection against double jeopardy extends to convictions obtained in foreign courts, provided the trial adhered to the principles of natural justice.
3. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, incorporates the principle of autrefois convict, preventing a second trial for the same offence after a person has been convicted or acquitted.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because Section 300 of the CrPC (now Section 336 of BNSS) codifies the principle of autrefois convict, barring a second trial for the same offence once a competent court has rendered a verdict. Statement 1 is incorrect because the principle of res judicata is primarily a civil law concept, and criminal proceedings are governed by the doctrine of autrefois convict/acquit, not the Indian Evidence Act. Statement 2 is incorrect because the A.D.M. Jabalpur case (1976) dealt with the suspension of fundamental rights during an Emergency, and Indian law generally does not recognize convictions by foreign courts as a bar to prosecution within India under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of departmental disciplinary proceedings:
1. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, introduced the protection against double jeopardy in Article 20(2) to harmonize domestic law with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
2. The 1953 Maqbool Hussain judgment established that departmental disciplinary proceedings fall under the ambit of Article 20(2) if the penalty imposed involves a permanent loss of government service.
3. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides protection against double jeopardy, which is restricted to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because Article 20(2) applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or departmental inquiries. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 20(2) was part of the original Constitution adopted in 1950, not introduced by the 1951 Amendment, and it is not derived from the ICCPR. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) judgment explicitly clarified that departmental or administrative proceedings do not constitute 'prosecution' under Article 20(2), regardless of the severity of the penalty.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to contempt of court proceedings:
1. The principle of 'autrefois convict' is a common law doctrine that forms the basis of the protection against double jeopardy enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
2. In the 1953 judgment of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, the court clarified that the term 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) refers to a proceeding before a court or a judicial tribunal.
3. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides for the procedural framework of judicial review, and the 1973 amendment to this Act integrated double jeopardy protections into contempt sentencing.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 20(2) incorporates the common law doctrine of 'autrefois convict,' ensuring no person is prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain (1953) established that 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) necessitates a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or departmental inquiries. Statement 3 is incorrect because there was no 1973 amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, regarding double jeopardy, and contempt proceedings are generally considered sui generis, meaning the constitutional protection against double jeopardy does not strictly apply to them in the same manner as criminal trials.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to foreign court convictions:
1. The Supreme Court in the Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) case clarified that the protection against double jeopardy applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
2. The Extradition Act of 1962 allows for the recognition of foreign court verdicts, and Section 20(2) of the Constitution provides automatic immunity from domestic prosecution if a foreign court has already issued a conviction.
3. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain (1953) ruled that 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) requires a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or departmental inquiries. Statement 3 is correct as it accurately reflects the constitutional provision of Article 20(2), which prohibits double jeopardy for the same offence. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 20(2) protection is strictly limited to domestic prosecutions and does not grant immunity for offences previously tried by foreign courts, nor does the Extradition Act override this constitutional limitation.
Consider the following statements regarding Relationship with Article 21 and due process:
1. The Supreme Court in the Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) case clarified that the protection under Article 20(2) applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
2. The doctrine of double jeopardy is derived from the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which was incorporated into the Indian legal framework through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.
3. In the case of Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958), the Supreme Court held that the protection against double jeopardy applies to proceedings before administrative agencies, including the Customs authorities.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain (1953) established that 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) requires a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding departmental or administrative inquiries. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine of double jeopardy is an original feature of the Constitution under Article 20(2) and was not introduced by the 42nd Amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Leo Roy Frey (1958) reaffirmed that proceedings before customs authorities are not 'prosecution' in a court of law, meaning they do not trigger the protection against double jeopardy.
Consider the following statements regarding Scope of 'Autrefois Convict' principle:
1. The principle of 'Autrefois Acquit' is incorporated into the Indian Constitution under Article 20(3), which serves as a companion to the protection against double jeopardy.
2. The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, under Section 300, provides that a person acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction can be retried if the prosecution presents new evidence discovered after the initial acquittal.
3. The Supreme Court in the 1961 Venkataraman v. Union of India case held that the protection of Article 20(2) extends to proceedings before a departmental inquiry committee established under the Civil Services Rules.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 20(2) covers double jeopardy, while Article 20(3) relates to self-incrimination, and 'Autrefois Acquit' is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC bars a retrial for the same offense once a person has been acquitted or convicted by a competent court, regardless of new evidence. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) ruled that departmental inquiries are not 'prosecution' before a court or judicial tribunal, thus Article 20(2) does not apply to such proceedings.
Consider the following statements regarding Status of acquittal versus conviction in protection:
1. The Supreme Court in the Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) case clarified that the protection against double jeopardy does not apply to proceedings before administrative or departmental authorities.
2. Under the principle of autrefois acquit, the Indian legal framework differentiates between acquittal and conviction, where the protection against double jeopardy is triggered only upon a prior conviction, unlike the broader scope found in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
3. The protection afforded by the Indian Constitution regarding double jeopardy is applicable to foreign courts, meaning an acquittal in a foreign jurisdiction prevents a subsequent trial for the same offence within the territory of India.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain (1953) ruled that Article 20(2) applies only to judicial proceedings before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or departmental inquiries. Statement 2 is correct because, unlike the U.S. Fifth Amendment which covers both acquittal and conviction, Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution is narrower, requiring a previous conviction by a court of law for the same offence. Statement 3 is incorrect because the protection under Article 20(2) is limited to prosecutions and punishments within Indian courts; an acquittal in a foreign jurisdiction does not bar a subsequent trial for the same offence in India.
Consider the following statements regarding Status of acquittal versus conviction in protection:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, incorporates the doctrine of autrefois convict in Section 300, which extends the protection of double jeopardy to cases where an individual has been discharged by a magistrate prior to a formal trial.
2. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides protection against double jeopardy, specifically requiring that the person must have been prosecuted and punished for the same offence before a court of law or judicial tribunal.
3. In the case of Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958), the court observed that departmental inquiries resulting in penalties are equivalent to judicial trials, thereby invoking the constitutional bar against subsequent prosecution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because Article 20(2) mandates that a person must have been both prosecuted and punished by a court or judicial tribunal to claim protection. Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 300 of the CrPC applies only to cases where a person has been previously convicted or acquitted by a competent court, not to cases where they were merely discharged prior to a formal trial. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent, District Jail (1958) explicitly held that departmental or administrative inquiries do not constitute a 'prosecution' before a court or judicial tribunal, meaning penalties from such inquiries do not bar subsequent criminal prosecution.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability to foreign court convictions:
1. The 1950 Indo-Bhutan Treaty includes provisions for the mutual recognition of judicial sentences, which serves as the legal basis for the application of double jeopardy protection regarding crimes committed by Indian citizens in Bhutanese territory.
2. Under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence committed by a citizen of India outside the country can be inquired into or tried in India as if it were committed within the territory of India.
3. Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 provides for the relevance of previous judgments, and it permits the introduction of a foreign acquittal as a bar to subsequent prosecution for the same offence in an Indian court.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because Section 188 of the CrPC empowers Indian courts to try citizens for offences committed abroad, subject to the Central Government's sanction. Statement 1 is incorrect as the 1950 Indo-Bhutan Treaty does not contain provisions for the mutual recognition of judicial sentences or double jeopardy protection. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Section 300 of the CrPC, the protection against double jeopardy (autrefois convict/acquit) is strictly limited to previous trials by a 'court of competent jurisdiction' within India, and a foreign acquittal does not legally bar a subsequent prosecution in an Indian court.
Consider the following statements regarding Evolution of the doctrine from common law to Indian Constitution:
1. The Constituent Assembly debates of 1948 included a proposal to extend double jeopardy protection to departmental inquiries, which was incorporated into Article 20(2) upon the final adoption of the Constitution.
2. The Supreme Court ruling in A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976) established that the protection against double jeopardy is a fundamental right that remains enforceable even during the suspension of other constitutional rights.
3. The Law Commission of India in its 41st Report suggested that the scope of Article 20(2) be amended to include administrative penalties, leading to the enactment of the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution is narrower than the common law doctrine, applying only to 'prosecution and punishment' before a court or judicial tribunal, explicitly excluding departmental or administrative inquiries. Statement 2 is false as the A.D.M. Jabalpur case (Habeas Corpus case) is infamous for ruling that the right to move courts for the enforcement of fundamental rights can be suspended during an Emergency, and it did not establish a precedent for double jeopardy protection. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 41st Law Commission Report did not lead to such an amendment, and the scope of Article 20(2) remains restricted to judicial proceedings as interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases like Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay.
Consider the following statements regarding Concept of 'Same Offence' vs 'Same Transaction:
1. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
2. The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) clarified that the protection against double jeopardy applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
3. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, incorporates the principle of autrefois convict, preventing a second trial for the same offence after a person has been convicted or acquitted.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 20(2) enshrines the doctrine of double jeopardy, ensuring protection against multiple prosecutions and punishments for the same offence. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) ruled that 'prosecution' implies a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or departmental inquiries. Statement 3 is correct as Section 300 of the CrPC expands the constitutional protection by incorporating the principle of 'autrefois acquit' and 'autrefois convict,' barring a second trial for the same offence or on the same facts if the initial verdict was rendered by a competent court.
Consider the following statements regarding Scope of 'Autrefois Convict' principle:
1. The principle of 'Autrefois Convict' implies that a person who has been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction and convicted cannot be tried again for the same offence.
2. The scope of Article 20(2) encompasses both civil and criminal liabilities, ensuring that a person is protected from multiple penalties for the same tax-related default.
3. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 and 3 are correct as they accurately reflect the principle of 'Double Jeopardy' enshrined in Article 20(2), which bars subsequent prosecution and punishment for the same criminal offence once a person has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction. Statement 2 is incorrect because the protection under Article 20(2) is strictly limited to criminal proceedings and does not extend to civil liabilities or tax-related defaults, which can be subject to multiple penalties under separate regulatory frameworks.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial review of administrative penalties vs criminal punishment:
1. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once, a principle derived from the English common law maxim nemo debet bis vexari.
2. The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) clarified that the protection against double jeopardy is applicable only when the earlier proceeding was before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
3. Departmental or administrative inquiries resulting in the dismissal of a public servant do not constitute prosecution for the purposes of Article 20(2), as established in the Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) ruling.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 20(2) incorporates the 'nemo debet bis vexari' principle, ensuring protection against double jeopardy. Statement 2 is correct because the Maqbool Hussain case established that 'prosecution' under Article 20(2) requires a proceeding before a court or judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or customs authorities. Statement 3 is correct as the Venkataraman ruling clarified that departmental inquiries are not 'prosecutions' for an 'offence,' meaning a public servant can face both departmental dismissal and criminal trial without violating double jeopardy protections.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of Article 20(2) in protecting against retrial:
1. In the 1953 case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, the Supreme Court clarified that departmental inquiries do not constitute prosecution for the purpose of Article 20(2).
2. The 1961 Venkataraman v. Union of India judgment established that proceedings before a customs authority are equivalent to a criminal trial, thereby triggering the bar against subsequent prosecution.
3. The protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) applies only to proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain (1953) held that departmental inquiries are not 'prosecutions' before a court or judicial tribunal, thus falling outside Article 20(2). Statement 3 is correct because the protection requires the initial proceeding to have been before a court of law or a judicial tribunal, excluding administrative or departmental bodies. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) case explicitly ruled that proceedings before a customs authority are not a 'prosecution' for a criminal offence, meaning they do not trigger the bar against double jeopardy.