SANGEETABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

SANGEETABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Subsequent prosecution under IPC sections 406/420/114 for criminal breach of trust, cheating and abetment is not barred by Section 300 Cr.P.C. or Section 26 General Clauses Act even though it arises from the same facts as an earlier trial under Section 138 N.I. Act, because the ingredients of the offences are different.

Parties
Appellant: Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel; Respondent No. 1: State of Gujarat; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court's Dismissal of Section 482 Cr.p.c. Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Section 300 Cr.p.c., Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 406/420/114 IPC, Section 26 General Clauses Act
Criminal Law Double Jeopardy Section 300 Cr.p.c. Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 406/420/114 IPC Section 26 General Clauses Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel

Appellant

State of Gujarat

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court's Dismissal of Section 482 Cr.p.c. Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subsequent prosecution under IPC sections 406/420/114 is barred under Section 300 Cr.P.C. and Section 26 General Clauses Act, after trial under Section 138 N.I. Act for the same facts
  2. 2 Applicability of rule against double jeopardy when facts overlap but legal ingredients are different

Ratio Decidendi

Subsequent prosecution under IPC sections 406/420/114 for criminal breach of trust, cheating and abetment is not barred by Section 300 Cr.P.C. or Section 26 General Clauses Act even though it arises from the same facts as an earlier trial under Section 138 N.I. Act, because the ingredients of the offences are different.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; subsequent prosecution permitted