Page 75 - test_constitution 100

ART. 20 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 75
Om Prakash Gupta v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 458 : 1957 Cri. L.J. 575 (SC) : 1957 SCR 423.
Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325 : 1953 Cri. L.J. 1432 (SC).
Thomas Dana v State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 375 : 1959 Cri. L.J. 392 (SC). Accused voluntarily producing offending property — Mohammed
Dastagir v State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 756 : 1960 Cri. L.J. 1159 (SC). Tape-recorded conversation — R.M. Malkani v State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1973 SC 157 : (1973)1 SCC 471 : 1973 Cri. L.J. 228 (SC).
All procedural laws are retrospective unless the legislature expressly states to the contrary. The procedural laws in force must be applied at the date when the suit or proceeding comes on for trial or disposal. (Sudhir G. Angur and Others v M. Sanjeev and Others, AIR 2006 SC 351 : (2006)1 SCC 141).
It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. However, the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Equally the rule against retrospective construction is not applicable to a statute merely because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing. (Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v Jagdish Balaram Bahira, AIR 2017 SC 3271 : (2017)8 SCC 670).
Forfeiture of illegally acquired property of a convict under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (13 of 1976), Sections 3, 6 and 7 is not hit by prohibition envisaged in Article 20 of the Constitution. Biswanath Bhattacharya v Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1003 : (2014)4 SCC 392).
Double jeopardy - The rule against double jeopardy is stated in the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. It is a significant basic rule of Criminal Law that no man shall be put in jeopardy twice for one and the same offence. The rule provides foundation for the pleas of autrefois acquit and auterofois convict. The manifestation of this rule is to be found contained in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code. (State of Rajasthan v Hat Singh, AIR 2003 SC 791 : (2003)2 SCC 152).
There are two aspects of doctrine of jeopardy viz. Autrefois convict and Autrefois acquit. Autrefois convict means that the person has been previously convicted in respect of the same offence. Autrefois acquit means that the person has been acquitted on a same charge on which he is being prosecuted. Constitution bars double punishment for the same offence. The conviction for such offence does not bar for subsequent trial and conviction for another offence and it does not matter even if some ingredients of these two offences are common.
A KLJ PUBLICATION