{"id":252380,"date":"2021-08-06T15:00:50","date_gmt":"2021-08-06T09:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=252380"},"modified":"2021-08-12T18:28:29","modified_gmt":"2021-08-12T12:58:29","slug":"principle-against-double-jeopardy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/","title":{"rendered":"Bom HC | Do principles laid under S. 300 CrPC and principle of double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) of Constitution differ? Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Bombay High Court: <\/strong>Manish Pitale, J., while setting aside an impugned order explained the slight difference between principles laid down under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 from the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Petitioner invoked the principles of <em>nemo debet bis vexari (no man shall be put twice in peril for the same offence) <\/em>and <em>autrefois acquit (the person has been acquitted on a same charge on which he is being prosecuted), <\/em>embodied in Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in order to demonstrate that the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in the present case erred in passing the impugned order.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was stated that a complaint was submitted before the police by the Food Safety Officer alleging that banned substances i.e. <em>Gutkha <\/em>and other such material was found stored in Om Shanti Pan Center at Malkapur, run by the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Petitioner was acquitted for offences under Sections 188 and 272 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate found that even though there was an order of acquittal in favour of the petitioner for offence under Section 59 of the FSS Act, since the acquittal order was passed by a Court, which was not competent to try offence under the FSS Act, the order of acquittal could be of no avail. It was held that since the order of acquittal was passed by the Court, which could not be said to be a Court of competent jurisdiction, Section 300 of the CrPC could not be invoked.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Challenging the above decision of the Court, present petition was filed.<\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008080;\">Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">High Court expressed that Section 300 of the CrPC embodies the following two principles:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>nemo debet bis vexari (no man shall be put twice in peril for the same offence) and<\/li>\n<li>autrefois acquit (the person has been acquitted on a same charge on which he is being prosecuted).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Bench stated that the above two principles are slightly different from the principle of double jeopardy embodied in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Court found the finding of Chief Judicial Magistrate to be in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of <em>State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Subhan, <\/em><span style=\"font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;\">(2019) 18 SCC 145, <\/span>wherein it had been categorically held that the Food Safety Officer can also lodge complaints about offences punishable under the IPC, in addition to offences under FSS Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">After referring to the said provision, the Supreme Court held that the Food Safety Officer could certainly initiate prosecution under the provisions of the IPC as well as the FSS Act, so long as the ingredients of the offences stood satisfied.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>\u201c\u2026provisions of the FSS Act make it clear that there is no bar for prosecution under the IPC, merely because the provisions in the FSS Act prescribe penalty.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In view of the above, it was held that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the impugned order committed an error in proceeding on the basis that when FIR was registered against the petitioner for offences under the IPC and FSS Act, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class could not have conducted the trial against the petitioner, insofar as the offence under the FSS Act was concerned.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The subsequent complaint lodged by the Food Safety Officer dated 20-01-2015, also specifically pertains to the same alleged incident dated 27-01-2014, in respect of which the petitioner already faced trial for alleged offences under the IPC and the very same provision i.e. Section 59 of the FSS Act and stood acquitted by the judgment and order dated 24-08-2015. Thus, the subsequent complaint lodged by the Food Safety Officer dated 20-01-2015, pertaining to the very same incident and for the very same alleged offence under Section 59 of the FSS Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Court found that the principles embodied under Section 300 CrPC clearly apply to the facts of the present matter.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Further, applying the said principle, High Court held that it becomes evident that if the impugned order was upheld and the petitioner was made to face the criminal proceedings subsequently initiated by the Food Safety Officer, it would amount to putting him twice in peril for the same offence, which cannot be permitted and hence the impugned order was set aside.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In view of the above, petition was allowed.[Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/7r515uOv\"><b>2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1576<\/b><\/a>, decided on 4-08-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Advocates before the Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mr Akshay Naik, Advocate for the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mr Sagar Ashirgade, APP for respondents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., while setting aside an impugned order explained the slight difference between principles laid down under Section <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":74381,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2518,37748,35799,46677,29785,42834,46059,46678],"class_list":["post-252380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-food-safety-and-standards-act-of-india","tag-food-safety-officer","tag-jeopardy","tag-law","tag-legal-news","tag-legal-update","tag-section-300-crpc"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Bom HC | Do principles laid under S. 300 CrPC and principle of double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) of Constitution differ? Explained | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Principle against double jeopardy\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bom HC | Do principles laid under S. 300 CrPC and principle of double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) of Constitution differ? Explained\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Principle against double jeopardy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-08-06T09:30:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-08-12T12:58:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/\",\"name\":\"Bom HC | Do principles laid under S. 300 CrPC and principle of double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) of Constitution differ? Explained | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-08-06T09:30:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-08-12T12:58:29+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Principle against double jeopardy\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bom HC | Do principles laid under S. 300 CrPC and principle of double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) of Constitution differ? Explained\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bom HC | Do principles laid under S. 300 CrPC and principle of double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) of Constitution differ? Explained | SCC Times","description":"Principle against double jeopardy","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bom HC | Do principles laid under S. 300 CrPC and principle of double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) of Constitution differ? Explained","og_description":"Principle against double jeopardy","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-08-06T09:30:50+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-08-12T12:58:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/","name":"Bom HC | Do principles laid under S. 300 CrPC and principle of double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) of Constitution differ? Explained | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","datePublished":"2021-08-06T09:30:50+00:00","dateModified":"2021-08-12T12:58:29+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Principle against double jeopardy","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","width":1331,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bom HC | Do principles laid under S. 300 CrPC and principle of double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) of Constitution differ? Explained"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":291079,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/02\/further-investigation-permissible-even-after-acceptance-of-final-report-supreme-court-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":252380,"position":0},"title":"Further Investigation permissible even after the final report laid before the Magistrate has been accepted: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"May 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court made clear that further investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment and hence, the principle of double jeopardy would not apply.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"further investigation","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/further-investigation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/further-investigation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/further-investigation.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/further-investigation.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277831,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/21\/tenability-of-successive-complaints-based-on-similar-facts-for-dishonour-of-cheque-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-and-cheating-under-section-420-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":252380,"position":1},"title":"Tenability of Successive Complaints Based on Similar Facts for Dishonour of Cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Cheating under Section 420 IPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 21, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ankur Mishra\u2020","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image2-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image2-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image2-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image2-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image2-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":348671,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/24\/the-law-on-clubbing-of-multiple-firs\/","url_meta":{"origin":252380,"position":2},"title":"The Law on Clubbing of Multiple FIRs","author":"Editor","date":"May 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Asangha Rai*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Law on Clubbing","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Law-on-Clubbing.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Law-on-Clubbing.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Law-on-Clubbing.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Law-on-Clubbing.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":311596,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/17\/violators-indulging-misbranding-cannot-punished-pfa-liable-penalty-fssa-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":252380,"position":3},"title":"Explained| SC verdict on inconsistency between penal provisions under Food Adulteration Act and Food Safety &amp; Standards Act","author":"Apoorva","date":"January 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe punishment under PFA and the penalty under the FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy, which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"misbranding","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/sc-today.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/sc-today.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/sc-today.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/sc-today.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":337662,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/20\/sc-quashes-hc-order-for-re-investigation-while-acquitting-accused-for-same-offence\/","url_meta":{"origin":252380,"position":4},"title":"\u2018Transfer of investigation to CBI in special circumstances\u2019; SC sets aside Madras HC order for re-investigation while acquitting accused for same offence","author":"Editor","date":"December 20, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cMere observation that the investigating authorities may have taken a lackadaisical ethical approach does not warrant the accused being put through the wringer once more for the same offence.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Reinvestigation to CBI by HC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Reinvestigation-to-CBI-by-HC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Reinvestigation-to-CBI-by-HC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Reinvestigation-to-CBI-by-HC.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Reinvestigation-to-CBI-by-HC.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275034,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/05\/allahabad-highcourt-anticipatory-bail-first-information-report-indian-penal-code-code-of-criminal-procedure-proclaimed-offender-government-servant-sections-82-crpc-section-83-crpc-precedent-legal-res\/","url_meta":{"origin":252380,"position":5},"title":"&#8220;Every judgment must be seen to its own context and facts, and the precedents cannot be applied universally to every case&#8221;; Allahabad High Court denies anticipatory bail to the applicant","author":"Editor","date":"October 5, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 120-B, 504, 506, 409, 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, Krishan Pahal, J. has held that that every judgement must be seen to its own context and facts and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Allahabad High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252380","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=252380"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252380\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}