Autrefois Acquit and Autrefois Convict

(Sec-300) &
Bars of Limitation (Sec 467-473)

PRESENTATION BY:
ATIN KUMAR
B.COM LLB
(HONS.)6TH SEM
16611
INTRODUCTION

u The right secured under clause 2 of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and
Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is grounded on the ancient
maxim “nemo debet bis vexari” i.e., a man shall not be brought into danger
for one and the same offence more than once or that he shall not be punished
or put in jeopardy for the same offence more than once. If a person is
charged again for the same offence in English Court, he can plead as a
complete defence, his former acquittal or conviction, or as it is technically
expressed, take the plea of autrefois acquit (formerly acquitted) or autrefois
convict (formerly convicted).
Scope of Section 300 Cr.P.C.:

Section 300 may be divided into following parts:

u Sub-section (1) makes a provision for autrefois convict and autrefois acquit.
u Other sub-sections provide exceptions to the general provision given in sub-
section (1).
u In those sub-sections provisions are made for subsequent trial of a person,
once tried for the offence on the same facts, or for the same offences in the
same transaction.
CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION OF
SECTION 300(1)

The conditions for the application of Sec. 300(1) are:

u That he (the accused person) had previously been tried by a Court for an offence.
u That such Court was competent to try that offence.
u That he was either convicted or acquitted of that offence, at the former trial.
u That such conviction or acquittal still remains in force when a subsequent
proceeding has been brought against him.
u That at the subsequent proceeding he is being tried again, (i) for the same
offence; or (ii) on the same facts for any other offence for which a different
charge might have been made under Sec. 221(1)-(2).
Section 300(2):

u Section 220(1) provides that if in one transaction many offences are committed by the same
person, he may be charged with (separately) and tried at one trial for every such offence.
u To provide a check against such abuse Sec. 300(2) makes it obligatory to obtain the consent of
the State Government before a new prosecution is launched against any person for any distinct
offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under
Sec. 220(1)
Section 300(3):

u This sub-section makes provision for a subsequent trial in cases where an act is in itself an
offence but together with the consequences that follow it becomes a graver offence. ‘A’ shoots
at ‘B’. He commits an offence of attempt to murder. He is tried under Sec.307 IPC and
acquitted. B dies as consequence of shooting, now the offence of murder is committed. In this
case a subsequent trial for the offence of murder is only possible when either the consequences
had not taken place at the time of the previous trial or it had happened but it was not known to
the Court trying the first case.
Section 300(4):
u Where the same acts which were committed by the accused constituted several offences, but
the trying magistrate could not charge the accused of the major offences because of his want of
competence to try such offences, a conviction or acquittal for the minor offence at such trial
will not bar a subsequent trial by a competent court of the major charges.
Section 300(5):
u The implied order of discharge under the latter part of Sec. 258 would not attract Sec. 300(1).
Hence, in order to prevent harassment of the accused by an unnecessary fresh proceeding, sub-
section (5) has been inserted, requiring the consent of the Magistrate who passed the order of
stoppage or of a superior Court, to bring a fresh proceeding.
Section 300(6):

u Sub-section (6) makes it clear that the provisions of Sec. 26 of the General Clauses Act have not
been affected by the provisions of Sec.
u This section also provides that nothing in this section shall effect the proviso of Sec.188 of the
Code. The proviso of Sec. 188 makes it compulsory to take the sanction of central government
prior to the prosecution for offences committed out of India.
Comparison between Section 300 Cr.P.C.
and Article 20(2) of the Constitution:
There are certain differences between Sec. 300 and Art. 20(2). They are-
u Section 300 is more comprehensive in its scope that Art. 20(2). Art. 20(2) bars the
re-trial of a person for the same offence when he has been convicted and
sentenced for the same offence whereas Section 300(1) specially incorporates the
principle which gives effect to the pleas of autrefois acquit as well as autrefois
convict.
u Article 20(2) is only applicable to same offences but the protection under Sec. 300
is also applicable to cognate offences for which charge could have been framed in
the previous trial under Sec. 220(1).
u In the landmark judgment of State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini[57] also it has been held
that though Art. 20(2) of the Constitution of India embodies a protection against
second trial after a conviction of the same offence, the ambit of the sub-article is
narrower than the protection afforded by Sec. 300 if the Criminal Procedure Code.
Section 467 "Definitions"

u For the purposes of this chapter unless the context otherwise requires, "period of limitation"
means the period specified in Section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence.

Section 468 "Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation“
The period of limitation shall be:-

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but
not exceeding three years.
u Section 469 “Commencement of the period of limitation”

The period of limitation shall commence -

u (a) on the date of the offence; or

u (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence
or to any police officer, the first day on which offence comes to the knowledge of such person or
to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or

u (c) where it is not known by whom the offence committed, the first day on which the identity of
the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making
investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier

u (2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be
excluded.
Section 470 “Exclusion of time in certain cases”

u The time during which any person has been prosecuting with due diligence another prosecution,
whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal or revision, against the offender, shall
be excluded.
u The period of the continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it was issued or
made, and the day on which it was withdrawn, shall be excluded.
u The previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required for the
institution of any prosecution for an offence.
u The time for which the offender is outside of India, or absconding shall be excluded.
Section 471 “Exclusion of date on which Court is closed”
u As per Section 471 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 where the period of limitation expires on
a day when the Court is closed, the Court may take cognizance on the day on which the Court
reopens.

Section 472 “Continuing offence”

u As per Section 472 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of a continuing offence, a fresh
period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence
continues.

Section 473 “Extension of period of limitation in certain cases”

u As per section 473 of Code of Criminal Procedure notwithstanding anything contained in the
foregoing provisions of this chapter, any court may take cognizance of an offence after the
expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied of the facts and in the circumstances of the
case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests
of justice."
Case Studies :

Willie (William) Slaney V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court Observed that a charge under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal
Code only is framed against an accused person and not under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, it will be reasonable to suppose that neither the prosecution nor
the Court considered the evidence sufficient to prove that murder was committed
by the accused and the omission to frame a charge under section 302 must be
regarded as a deliberate act of the Court by way of notice to the accused that he
was not being tried for that offence. It would not be a case of mere omission to frame
a charge. If, therefore, the accused is convicted under section 302, the conviction
would be invalid, as he was misled in his defence.
•The appellant’s conviction was altered from section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to
304 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Jasvinder Saini & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

It was held that under Section 216 of the CrPC, the court is authorised to alter or add charges even
after the completion of evidence, arguments, and reserving of the judgment. Such alteration or
addition of a charge may be done if in the opinion of the court, there was an omission in the
framing of charge or if upon prima facie examination of the material, it leads the court to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
The test to be adopted while deciding an addition or alteration of a charge is that the material
must have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged offence. The Court also held
that the veracity of depositions made by a witness is a question of trial and need not be determined
at the time of framing of charge.