LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No one can be punished for the same offence twice.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Aditya is accused of harassing his colleague Nimisha. She complains to her superior and a departmental inquiry is initiated against Aditya. Aditya tries to intimidate Nimisha and continues harassing her following which she complains to the police. The departmental inquiry finds him guilty and terminates his services. Later, he is found guilty by a court and is jailed for 2 years. He claims that he has been punished twice.
DECIDE.

He has been punished twice for the same offence

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

He has been punished thrice for the same offence

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

He has been punished for different offences

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

None of the above

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is B He has been punished for different offences
The principle is enshrined in Article 20 of the Indian Constitution as the doctrine of Double Jeopardy. It means that no person should be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Nimisha though filed two complaints but they were filed differently that is one under the department and other under police station. The former one was made against the act of harassment of Nimisha by Aditya, the latter one against the intimidation and continuing of harassment of Nimisha and Aditya.
Prosecution by the police is different than the departmental proceedings and would not amount to double jeopardy as the offences are different.
Hence, C is the correct option.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Suresh harasses his colleague Nimita in the office. Nimita makes a complaint to her employer and also to the police station. Following the recommendations of the departmental committee, the employer terminates the services of Suresh. The police also arrested him and prosecution started. He defended that he cannot be punished twice.
Which of the following options is correct?

Q. PRINCIPLE: No person shall be prosecuted punished for the same offence twice.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A', a kleptomaniac was an acquaintance of 'B' and used to visit 'B's home on weekends. One day, 'B' was unable to find his watch after a visit from 'A'. Untimatley, 'B' informed the police about the missing watch and the persons who had been to his room. The police, among others, made a search on person of 'A' and found the watch in his pocket. At his trial, the Court found him guilty of theft and sentenced him to 3 months in prison After completing his sentence, 'A' went to 'B's home to apologize for his conduct. After 'A' left, it was discovered that 'B's watch was missing, 'A' informed the police who located the watch from 'A's home. Can 'A' be prosecuted for theft?

Each question below has blanks indicating that something has been omitted. Choose the set of word(s) that best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

A public servant who is guilty will not _____ punishment and no _____ person will be punished.

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published any matter which interferes with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at the time of the publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.
FACTUAL SITUATION: X delivered a lecture at the local Rotary Club in favour of an accused who is prosecuted for assaulting a police officer. He said that the accused is a victim of prevailing corruption in the judiciary and he knows that the accused is going to be punished by the court for being honest. Is X guilty of contempt of court?
DECISION will be _____.

Q. PRINCIPLE: Doctrine of Double Jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence twice.
FACTS: Maqbool brought some gold into India without making any declaration to Custom department on the airport. The custom authorities confiscated the gold under the Sea Customs Act. Maqbool was later charged for having committed an offence under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

Join BYJU'S Learning Program