LexP. MANIKANDAN versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1553 : 2024 INSC 1007 P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 5478 of 2024) 19 December 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending fact and circumstances, the de novo investigation violated the principle of double jeopardy and the appellant’s right u/Art.20(ii) of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.20(ii) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.386 – The Trial Court held appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/ss.364A and 302 of IPC – Appellant preferred appeal – The High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts – Consequently, appellant was acquitted of all charges – However, the High Court further directed the transfer of all relevant documents to the Central Bureau of Investigation with the direction to conduct a de-novo investigation and submit a final report – Correctness: Held: In the present case, the High Court acquitted the appellant and directed to transfer the documents and relevant material to conduct the de novo investigation before CBI on the same facts for the same offences and to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law, by exercising the power u/s.386 of Cr.P.C – S.386(b) of Cr.P.C and also various judgments of the Supreme Court speak of retrial and not reinvestigation – S.173(8) of the Cr.P.C provides for further investigation with the permission of the magistrate, but not re-investigation – Such a concept, as it appears, is only invoked in extraneous circumstances – The mere observation that the investigating authorities may have taken a *Author 1554 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports lackadaisical ethical approach does not warrant the accused being put through the wringer once more for the same offence – The transfer to CBI, as already observed must take place in special circumstances – The High Court has not referred to any such special circumstance arising in the present case – The direction of the High Court, transferring the investigation to CBI and directing them to re-investigate the offence allegedly committed, was without the authority of law and, therefore, has to be set aside – As far as principle of double jeopardy is concerned, the three conditions were laid down in T.P. Gopalakrishnan: Firstly, there must have been previous proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction in which the person must have been prosecuted – The said prosecution must be valid and not null and void or abortive – Secondly, the conviction or acquittal in the previous proceeding must be in force at the time of the second proceeding in relation to the same offence and same set of facts, for which he was prosecuted and punished in the first proceeding – Thirdly, the subsequent proceeding must be a fresh proceeding, where he is, for the second time, sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence and same set of facts – In the present facts, a previous proceeding did take place wherein the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death – There is no question as to the Court's competence or jurisdiction – The first condition is, therefore, met – The acquittal awarded by the High Court has to remain in force for the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty applies and cannot be displaced in except in circumstances otherwise provided by law – The second principle is also met – Regarding the third condition, had the order been for retrial, the court could have held that the condition remained unmet; however, since the direction was for re-investigation and that too by a different investigation agency, it necessarily has to begin from zero – Hence, the second investigation, chargesheet and examination of witnesses would classify as meeting the third condition – In view of the discussion, this Court is of the view that the right enshrined in Article 20(2) of the appellant stands violated. [Paras 12, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Retrial and Reinvestigation difference: Held: Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.