Page 76 - test_constitution 100

76
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ART. 20
(State of Jharkhand v Lalu Prasad Yadav, AIR 2017 SC 3389 : (2017)8 SCC 1).
Double jeopardy - The ingredients of earlier and the latter offence must be same. (Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v State of Gujarat, AIR 2012 SC 2844 : (2012)7 SCC 621).
To attract applicability of Article 20(2) there must be a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence for which the accused has been prosecuted and punished previously. A subsequent trial or a prosecution and punishment are not barred if the ingredients of the two offences are distinct. (State of Rajasthan v Hat Singh, AIR 2003 SC 791 : (2003)2 SCC 152).
Article 20(2) - Departmental or disciplinary proceedings, even if punitive in amplitude, would not be outlawed by Article 20(2). (Union of India v Purushottam, AIR 2015 SC 961 : (2015)3 SCC 779).
Acquittal of an employee by a Criminal Court would not automatically and conclusively impact departmental proceedings. (Union of India v Purushottam, AIR 2015 SC 961 : (2015)3 SCC 779).
Departmental proceedings for the same, misconduct are not barred. (Union of India v Purushottam, AIR 2015 SC 961 : (2015)3 SCC 779).
Accused convicted under Section 304 of the IPC. Wife’s action for civil damages. No double jeopardy. (Suba Singh v Davinder Kaur, AIR 2011 SC 3163 : (2011)13 SCC 296 : 2011 AIR SCW 4563).
The offences for which the appellant was tried and convicted in the USA and for which he is now being tried in India, are distinct and separate and do not, therefore, attract either the provisions of Section 300(1) of the Cr. P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution. (Jitendra Panchal v Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, AIR 2009 SC 1938 : (2009)3 SCC 57).
Article 20(3) - Self incrimination - For invoking the constitutional right under Article 20(3) a formal accusation against the person claiming the protection must exist. (Balasaheb alias Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 304 : (2011)1 SCC 364 ; Raja Narayanlal Bansilal v Maneck Phiroz Mistry, AIR 1961 SC 29).
Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Interim confiscation is not prohibited by Article 20(3). (Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v State of Bihar, AIR 2016 SC 1474 : (2016)3 SCC 183).
Testimonial compulsion - Accused has right to give or not to give sample of his hair for the purpose of identification. He cannot be made a witness against himself against his Will. (Amrit Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 132 : (2007)2 SCC (Cri.) 397).
Taking specimen fingerprints/handwritings of accused does not offend Article 20(3). (State v M. Krishna Mohan, AIR 2008 SC 368 : (2007)14 SCC 667 : 2007 AIR SCW 7044).
Voice sample - Taking voice sample of accused for purpose of investigation does not offend Article 20(2). (Ritesh Sinha v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2013 SC 1132 : (2013)2 SCC 357).
A KLJ PUBLICATION