T.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN versus STATE OF KERALA

T.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN versus STATE OF KERALA

The Supreme Court held that the present prosecutions arose out of the same set of facts and the same period as the earlier three prosecutions against the appellant; therefore the trials were barred by the principle of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC and Article 20(2) (and, in any event, no prior consent of the State Government under Section 300(2) CrPC was shown). The trials and consequent convictions in C.C. No.24/2003 and C.C. No.25/2003 were unlawful and were quashed and set aside.

Parties
Appellant / Accused: T.P. Gopalakrishnan; Respondent: State of Kerala
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court (criminal Appeal Nos.187 188 of 2017)
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Article 20(2) Constitution of India, Section 300 Cr PC, Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 409 IPC, Consent of State Government Under Section 300(2) Cr PC, Article 21 Right to Life and Dignity
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Double Jeopardy Article 20(2) Constitution of India Section 300 Cr PC Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 +3 more

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T.P. Gopalakrishnan

Appellant / Accused

State of Kerala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court (criminal Appeal Nos.187 188 of 2017)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution in C.C. No.24/2003 and C.C. No.25/2003 was barred by protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC
  2. 2 Whether the offences in the present cases were the same offence/same set of facts as in the earlier three cases (C.C. Nos.12-14/1999)
  3. 3 Whether prior consent of the State Government under Section 300(2) CrPC was required and obtained

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the present prosecutions arose out of the same set of facts and the same period as the earlier three prosecutions against the appellant; therefore the trials were barred by the principle of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC and Article 20(2) (and, in any event, no prior consent of the State Government under Section 300(2) CrPC was shown). The trials and consequent convictions in C.C. No.24/2003 and C.C. No.25/2003 were unlawful and were quashed and set aside.