HC quashes second trial in same case, cites double jeopardy

The Bombay HC quashed a second trial for Mohit Bharatiya, citing double jeopardy, affirming the constitutional right against being tried twice for the same offense.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) has ruled in favour of a citizen, quashing a second trial against him on the grounds of double jeopardy. The court reaffirmed the constitutional principle of double jeopardy that prevents an individual from being tried or punished twice for the same offence or on the same set of facts.

HC quashes second trial in same case, cites double jeopardy

Justice Milind N Jadhav presided over the case, holding that the second trial violated the applicant’s fundamental rights and amounted to an abuse of the judicial process.

The case stemmed from two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in December 2009. The first FIR, under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP Act), accused Mohit Bharatiya of unauthorised construction on his Mumbai property. On the same day, a second FIR was lodged under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging that Bharatiya obstructed a public servant attempting to demolish the unauthorised structure.

The first case was tried, leading to Bharatiya’s acquittal in January 2016. However, in 2022, the prosecution initiated proceedings for the second FIR under the IPC. Bharatiya contested this move, asserting that it violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, as both FIRs arose from the same incident.

Advocate Faiz Merchant, representing Bharatiya, argued that the two FIRs were intrinsically linked, originating from a single episode. He highlighted the prosecution’s failure to consolidate the charges during the first trial, which had already resulted in an acquittal. Merchant further pointed out that under section 300(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), state government consent is mandatory for a second trial based on the same facts—a requirement that had not been fulfilled in this instance.

Additional public prosecutor Sangeeta Phad contended that the two FIRs invoked distinct legal provisions, with one relating to the MRTP Act and the other to the IPC. However, she conceded that both FIRs were based on the same set of facts and that the requisite state consent for the second prosecution had not been sought.

In its detailed judgement, the court applied the “test of sameness,” determining that both FIRs stemmed from the same occurrence. Justice Jadhav held that retrying Bharatiya would contravene Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits multiple prosecutions for the same offence.

The court noted that findings from the first trial, including observations critical of municipal officers’ conduct, could not be disregarded. It further stated that the lack of State consent for the second trial rendered the proceedings procedurally and legally unsustainable.

Quashing the second trial, the court underscored the principle of double jeopardy as a vital safeguard of individual dignity and liberty. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding fundamental rights and ensuring procedural fairness.