wiz-icon
MyQuestionIcon
MyQuestionIcon
10
You visited us 10 times! Enjoying our articles? Unlock Full Access!
Byju's Answer
Standard X
History
Mode of Functioning of a Lok Adalat
LEGAL PRINCIP...
Question

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?

A
He cannot be prosecuted
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
B
He can be prosecuted because departmental proceedings are different from prosecution
Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses
C
It is the sole discretion of the court to prosecute him or not to prosecute him as he has already paid a price a price by losing his job
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
D
The court has to prosecute only if the departmental commitee has recommended his prosecution
No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!
Open in App
Solution

The correct option is B He can be prosecuted because departmental proceedings are different from prosecution
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.
Nimita though filed two complaints but they were filed differently that is one under the department and other under police station.
Prosecution by the police is different than the departmental proceedings and would not amount to double jeopardy.

flag
Suggest Corrections
thumbs-up
0
similar_icon
Similar questions
Q. 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.
Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLES: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:
1. That he was prosecuted by the defendant.
2. That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff.
3. That the prosecution was instituted against him without any just or reasonable cause.
4. That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact.
5. That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to security of his property.
FACTUAL SITUATION : A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co. for personal injuries. Subsequently Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co, prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true?
Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:
(1) That he was prosecuted by the defendant
(2) That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff
(3) That the prosecution was initiated against him without any just or reasonable cause
(4) That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact
(5) That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to security of his property
FACTS: A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co., for personal injuries. Subsequently, Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co. prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true?
DECIDE.
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?
Q. Q. The constitution under Article 20 provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This protection is available in which of the following cases?Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

  1. 1 and 3 only

  2. 1, 2 and 3

  3. 1 and 2 only

  4. 1 only
View More
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
similar_icon
Related Videos
thumbnail
lock
The Lok Adalat and the LSA
HISTORY
Watch in App
explore_more_icon
Explore more
Mode of Functioning of a Lok Adalat
Standard X History
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
book_image
AI Tutor
book_image
Textbooks
book_image
Question Papers
book_image
Install app
CrossIcon