State of Mizoram vs Dr. C. Sangnghina - Supreme Court Important Judgment
State of Mizoram vs Dr. C. Sangnghina - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2018 -
On 30th October, 2018, in the case of State of Mizoram v. Dr. C. Sangnghina [Criminal Appeal No. 1322 of 2018], it was held that on facts, the High Court and the Special Court had erred in declining to take on file fresh / second charge sheet filed under Section 13(1)(c)(d)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that it was barred under the principles of “double jeopardy”.
Considering that in the present case, after the first charge sheet was filed, the respondent / accused was discharged due to lack of proper sanction even before commencement of trial, it was held that “there was no impediment for filing the fresh/ supplementary charge sheet after obtaining valid sanction.”
The Supreme Court observed that “the whole basis of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. is that the person who was tried by a competent court, once acquitted or convicted, cannot be tried for the same offence” but “in the case in hand, the respondent/accused has not been tried nor was there a full-fledged trial. On the other hand, the order of discharge dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Special Court was only due to invalidity attached to the prosecution.”
It was held that “when the respondent/accused was so discharged due to lack of proper sanction, the principles of “double jeopardy” will not apply. There was no bar for filing fresh / supplementary charge sheet after obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution.” The Supreme Court held that “the Special Court and the High Court were not right in holding that the filing of the fresh charge sheet with proper sanction order for prosecution was barred under the principles of “double jeopardy”.”