LexMONICA BEDI versus STATE OF AP.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 522
MONICA BEDI
V.
STATE OF AP.
(Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2007)
NOVEMBER 9, 2010
[8. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B, 419, 420, 465 and 468 -
C Accused entering into a conspiracy with other co-accused,
namely, Head Constable, Revenue Inspector and Postman,
to secure passport in the assumed name to enable her to
leave the country and travel abroad - Submission of false
documents - Framing of charges - Plea of double jeopardy
D by accused that she was tried and convicted by Lisbon court
for being in possession of fake passport - Conviction of
accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 120-B, 419 and
420; Head Constable ulss 120-B, 4191109, 4201109, 468 and
ss. 13(1){d) rlw. 13(2) of the 1988 Act; Revenue Inspector ul
E s. 468; and Postman u/ss. 120-B, 420, 4191109, 4201109 and
ss. 13(1 ){d) r!w. 13(2) of the 1988 Act - High Court upholding ·
conviction of accused persons, however modifying the
sentence - On appeal, held: Same set of facts can constitute
offences under two different laws - Bar to punishment to the
F offender twice over for the same offence would arise only
where the ingredients of both the offences are the same - On
the basis of the judgment passed by the Constitutional Court,
Lisbon and the facts of the case, plea of double jeopardy not
sustainable - Accused was involved in conspiracy at both pre-
G passport application stage and post-passport application
stage - Thus, her conviction is upheld, however sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone while fine amount
is maintained - Evidence on record established that the
Postman participated in the conspiracy in securing the
H
522
MONICA BEDI v. STATE OF A.P.
523
passport for accused in the assumed name; and the Head
A
Constable submitted a false report in order to enable the
accused to secure a passport for herself in the assumed
name -
Thus, their conviction is upheld however, the
sentence is reduced while fine amount is maintained - As
regards Revenue Inspector, ingredients for the offence of B
forgery not satisfied, thus, he is acquitted of the offence u/s.
465 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(2) - Rule of
double jeopardy - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
s. 13(1 )(d) rlw 13(2) - Sentence/Sentencing.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(2) - Protection
C
against a second trial and conviction for the same offence
under Article 20(2) - When applicable - Explained - R_ule of
double jeopardy - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 300:
Maxim - 'Nemo de/set bis vexari pro eadem causa' -
Meaning of- No one should be put on peril twice for the same
offence.
D
According to the prosecution case, 'M' (A 3) entered
E
into a conspiracy with A 5 - Head Constable, A 7 -
Revenue Inspector, Kurnool and A 8 - Postman, Head
Post Office, Kurnool to secure second passport in the
assumed name of 'SM' from the Regional Passport Office,
Secunderabad by submitting false documents like
residence certificate, educational certificate. 'M' entered · F
Portugal with the aid of passport standing in the name
of 'SM', and was prosecuted and punished by a
competent court of jurisdiction at Lisbon. In India, the
charges were framed against the accused persons under
various provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 and the
G
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A-3 raised a plea of
double jeopardy that she was tried and convicted by
Lisbon court for being in possession of fake passport ..
The trial court convicted A 3 under sections 120-8, 419
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A and 420 IPC but acquitted her of the charge under
Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967. A 5 was convicted
under Sections 120-B, 419 r/w 109, 420 r/w 109, 468 IPC
and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, A 7 under Section 468 IPC, and A 8 under
B Sections 120-B, 420, 419r/w109, 420 r/w 109 and Sections
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed
the conviction but modified the sentence. Therefore, the
appellants filed the instant appeals.
c
Allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue Inspector
and partly allowing the appeals filed by others, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India,
1950 provides that no person would be prosecuted and
D punished for the same offencExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.