‘No person should be twice brought to trial for same offence’

Srinagar, Dec 19: Underscoring that no person should be brought to trial for the same offence twice, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has quashed proceedings against the Managing Director (MD) of a pharmaceutical company.

“It is well-settled law that no person should be brought to trial for the same offence, and the same subject matter twice,” a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal said and quashed proceedings against Kumar Wanchoo, Managing Director M/s Eaton Laboratories Zainakot before a trial court here.

“In essence, M/s Eaton Laboratories 40 Industrial Estate, Zainakote, Srinagar, 190012, has been convicted for an offence that is manufacture for sale of drug Emlo-A, having Batch No 9159, manufacturing date January 2013, expiry date December 2015 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag. As such, the petitioner M/s Eaton Laboratories cannot be tried for commission of the offence of manufacture for sale of the drug having same specific manufacturing details, subsequently,” the court said.

Observing that the continuation of proceedings in the second complaint against the MD M/s Eaton Laboratories Zainakote would amount to double jeopardy, the court allowed the plea to challenge the proceedings.
“Resultantly, the proceedings pending before the Court of 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge Srinagar against the petitioner initiated under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, supra are quashed, in entirety,” the court said. “This court is of the view that if the prosecution in the second complaint against the petitioner continues, then it will amount to allowing the Petitioner who has once been convicted, to be tried for the same offence again or in other words, that will be allowing the petitioner to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”

In its decision, Justice Nargal spelt out the concept of “double jeopardy” in light of a Supreme Court judgment passed last year.

“The concept of double jeopardy can also be understood in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law,” the court said.

While the court observed that ‘life’ under Article 21 of the constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing, it said: “It does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider connotation. It includes the right to live with human dignity.”

Under the umbrella of Article 21, the court said, various rights like the right to free legal aid, right to speedy trial, and right to fair trial had been included.

The court noted that protection against double jeopardy is also included under the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“Prosecuting a person for the same offence in the same series of facts, for which he has previously either been acquitted or has been convicted and undergone the punishment, affects the person’s right to live with dignity,” it said.