About Me

My photo
Central University of Punjab, Bathinda 151001 state Punjab, INDIA

Friday, March 4, 2011

Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offences

Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offences

§ General

§ Protection available to citizens as well as non-citizens

Clause (1) Protection against ex post facto law

§ Meaning and Illustration

§ Article 15 ICCPR 1966

§ Offence Sec.26 of General Clause Act 1897

§ Constitutional Recognition to the rule

No one can be convicted for expect for the violation of a law in force.

A penal statute which create a new offences is always prospective in operation

§ First part of Art. 20(1) a law which declare some act as an offence after the completion of that act.

§ Cases:

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. AIR 1957 All.

Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai Vs State of Gujarat AIR 1991 SC2173.

§ Interpretation of a provision of law does not create any new offence

Lily Thomas Vs Union of India AIR 2000 SC.

Sarla Mudgal Vs Union of India AIR 1995 SC.

§ Second Part of Art. 20(1) prohibits the enhancement of punishment subsequently.

Kedar Nath Vs State of W. B. AIR 1953 SC

Maru Ram Vs Union of India AIR 2000 SC

§ Benificial ex post facto law:

Ratan Lal Vs state of Punjab AIR 1965SC.

§ Procedural ex post facto law is not hit by Art 20(1)

§ Protection against ex post facto law in American Constitution.

§ Imposition of civil liability retrospectively not barred.

Clause (2) Protection against Double Jeopardy:

§ Meaning and Object

§ English common law Maxim “nemo debet bis vexaari”

§ Essential Ingredients:

§ The person must be an accused of an offence

§ The person must have been prosecuted before a court or a tribunal

Maqbool Hussain Vs state of Bombay AIR 1953 SC

S. A. Venkataraman Vs Union of India AIR 1954SC

§ The person must have been punished after his prosecution before a court or a tribunal

Baij Nath Vs state of Bhopal AIR 1957 SC

English Common law

American law

§ The person must be prosecuted for the second time before a court or tribunal

§ The offence must be the same in both the proceedings.

Leo Roy Frey Vs Superintendent District Jail AIR 1958SC

State of Rajisthan Vs Hat Singh AIR 2003 SC

Clause (3) Protection against Self Incrimination:

§ Meaning

No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself –Right against testimonial compulsion

§ English common law Maxim “nemo tenetur prodere accussare seipsum”

§ 5th Amendment of American Constitution.

§ Fundamental Principal of criminal jurisprudence

“An accused must be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.”

Article 11 UDHR 1948

§ Essential Ingredients:

§ The person must be an accused of an offence

Vera Ibrahim Vs state of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 1167

Nandini Satpathy Vs P. L.Dani AIR 1978 SC

§ It is a protection against compulsion to be a witness

M. P. Sharma Vs Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC

State of Bombay Vs Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC

State Vs Krishna Mohan AIR 2008 SC

§ It is a protection against such compulsion as resulting in his giving evidence against himself

§ Section 27 of Evidence Act 1872 & Art. 20(3)

No comments:

Post a Comment