STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus HAT SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 38 · Decided: 08-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
1:· 
HAT SINGH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 8, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
71_ 
Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987-Sections 5 and 6(1)(2) and (3)-
Prosecution under both the provisions-Whether violative of Article 20(2) of 
c the Constitution-Held, not violative, since ingredients of both the provisions 
are not same and they are distinct offences-Applicability of Article 20(2) is 
attracted when second prosecution is for same offence-Subsequent trial or 
prosecution are not barred if the ingredients of two offences are distinct-
,)..--
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 20(2)---General Clauses Act, 1897-Section 
26-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 300-Penal Code, 1860-
D Section 71. 
Words and Phrases-"glorification"-Meaning of in the context of 
Section 6 of Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987. 
..... 
Respondent-accused were arrested and cases u/s 6(3) of Rajasthan 
~ 
E Sati (Prevention) Ordinance, 1987 and also u/s 5 of the Ordinance were 
registered against them. Respondents filed petitions from jail which were 
treated as writ petitions and petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the 
constitutional validity of several provisions of the Ordinance (which was 
later replaced by Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987). High Court 
F 
upheld the constitutional validity of the Act, excepting Section 19. It found 
that provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act were overlapping; once order 
J 
u/s 6(2) was issued provisions of Section 5 merge into the provisions of 
Section 6 and thereafter a person can be held liable for commission of 
offence only by reference to Section 6(3). However, all the prosecutions 
were directed to be quashed in as much as the prohibitory order of 
G Collector was not published in accordance with law. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that High Court was 
not right to hold that once prohibitory order u/s 6(1) and (2) was made, 
section 5 ceased to apply. 
H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
38 
-) 
j 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. HAT SINGH 
39 
HELD: I. The ingredients of the offences contemplated by Section A 
5 and Section 6(3) are not the same nor they necessarily ar.d in all cases 
overlap nor the prosecution and punishment for the offences under Section 
5 and 6(3) - both, are violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or of 
the rule againsl double jeopardy. [47-D-E] 
2. In a given case, same set of facts may give rise to an offence B 
punishable under Section 5 and Section 6(3) both. There is nothing 
unconstitutional or illegal about it. So also an act which is alleged to be 
an offence under Section 6(3) of the Act and if for any reason prosecution 
u/s 6(3) does not end in conviction, if the ingredients of offence under 
Section 5 are made out, may still be liable to be punished under Section 5 C 
of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that once a prohibitory order under 
sub-section (I) or (2) has been issued, then a criminal act done after the 
promulgation of the prohibitory order can be punished only under Section 
6(3) and in spite of prosecution u/s 6(3) failing, on the same set of facts 
the person proceeded against cannot be held punishable u/s S of the Act 
although the ingredients of Section S are fully made out. [47-F-H] 
D 
3. To attract applicability of Article 20(2) there must be a second 
prosecution and punishment for the same oft.nee 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. [44-F] 
E 
4. The rule against double jeopardy is stated in the maxim nemo debet 
bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. it is a significant basic rule of Criminal 
Law that no man shall be put in jeopardy twice for one and the same 
offence. The rule provides foundation for the pleas of autrefois acquit and F 
autrefois convict. The manifestation of this rule is to be found contained 
in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 300 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code. 
[44-G, H] 
S. The offences u/s 5, under Section 6(1) r/w Section 6(3) and Section G 
6(2) r/w Section 6(3) are three distinct offences. They are not the same 
offences. While Section S makes the commission of an act an offence and 
· ... ---. 
punishes the same, the provisions of Section 6 are preventive in nature 
and make provision for punishing contravention of prohibitory

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