STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SP, CBI versus LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD Y ADAY

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 08-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 630 
STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SP, CBI 
v. 
LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD Y ADAY 
(Criminal Appeal No. 394of2017) 
MAYOS,2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Fodder Scam: 
Constitution of India: 
Art. 20(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, I973 - s. 300- On 
facts, large scale defalcation of public funds, fraudulei1t transactions 
and fabrication of accounts in Animal Husbandry Department of 
State of Bihm· popularly known as fodder scam - Investigation by 
CBI regarding corruption in public administration, misconduct by 
bureaucracy, fabrication of official records, misappropriation of 
public funds by independent agency - Conviction of three in one of 
the criminal cases arising out of fodder scam - Quashing of, by the 
High Court, applying Art. 20(2) and s.300 CrPC on the ground 
that they have been convicted in one of the cases for offences 
involving same ingredients with respect to Chaibasa treaswy - Held: 
Though there is one general conspiracy, offences are distinct for 
different periods - Defalcations are from different treasziries for 
different financial years by exceeding the amount of each year which 
was allocated for Animal Husband1y Department - Amount involved 
is different, fake vouchers, fake allotment letters, fake supply orders 
had been prepared with the help of different sets of accused persons 
- Separate charges for distinct offences must be framed separately 
and they cannot be clubbed together for more than one year - Thus, 
the di-der passed by the High Court is set aside_. 
Art. 20(2) - Scope of - Held: No person to be prosecuted 
G 
and punished for the same offence more than once - This is called 
docti·ine of double jeopardy - Constitution bars double punishment 
for the same offence - 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. 
H 
630 
STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SP, CBI v. LALU 
631 
PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD Y ADAY 
Delay/laches - Delay in filing the appeals by CBI -
Applications for condonation of delay on account of departmental, 
administrative procedures involved in filing SLP s - Held: Delay 
A 
has been sufficiently explained - Considering the facts and 
circumstances of the case, gravamen of matter and Jhe -divergent 
views taken by the same Judge of the High Court in the same case · 8 
vis-a-vis different accused persons _mt same question, delay to be 
condoned so as to subserve the ends of justice. 
Doctrines - Doctrine of double jeopardy - Two f{lcet of 
doctrine of jeopardy is 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. 
Judicial deprecation - Delay in filing SLP by CBI in Fodder 
scam matter - Conduct of CBI in important matters is surprising -
CBI ought to have acted with more circumspection and ought to 
have followed the CBI Manual - Lethargy on its part is intolerable 
- Director of CBI to look into the matter and saddle the responsibility 
on a concerned person - In important cases Directo1; CBI to devise 
convenient methodology or else Director, CBI cannot escape the 
responsibility for delay - Delay would be termed as inlolerable. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Article 20(2) of the Constitution, says that no 
person shall b~ prosecuted and punished for the same offence 
more than once. This is called the doctrine of double jeopardy. 
Tbe objective of the Article is to avoid harassment, wbicb may 
be caused by successive criminal proceedings, where the person 
has committed only one crime. There is a law maxim related to 
this, nemo debet bis vexari. This means that no man shall be put 
twice' iri peril for the same offence. There are two aspects of 
doctrine of jeopardy viz. Autre/ois convict and Autre/ois "cquit. 
Autre/ois convict means that the person has been .previously 
convicted in respect of tbe same offence. Autre/ois 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 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
not matter even if 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.