Nemo debt bis vexari pro una et eadem causa
The legal maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” is a Latin phrase which means “no one should be punished twice for the same offense.” This principle is a fundamental principle of criminal law and is also known as the “double jeopardy” rule.
The maxim emphasizes that an individual cannot be subjected to a second prosecution or punishment for the same offense after he or she has already been tried, acquitted or convicted for that same offense. It also applies to situations where an individual is punished for the same act twice under different legal provisions.
In Indian law, the legal maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” is a principle of res judicata which provides that no person should be punished twice for the same offence or cause of action. Res judicata is a doctrine that is based on the principle of finality of litigation, and it prevents a party from re-litigating the same issue that has already been adjudicated upon in a previous proceeding.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 recognizes the principle of res judicata under Section 40, which provides that any fact which has been decided in a former suit cannot be re-opened and re-agitated in a subsequent suit between the same parties. The Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also recognizes the principle of res judicata under Section 11, which states that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or their privies.
This maxim is often referred to as the principle of double jeopardy and it provides protection to individuals from being punished twice for the same offence.
The Indian Constitution recognizes the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2), which states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This provision is in line with the fundamental principle of criminal law, which seeks to prevent harassment and oppression of individuals.
One example of the application of this principle in India can be seen in the case of K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra (1961). In this case, the accused, K. M. Nanavati, was tried and acquitted by a jury for the murder of his wife’s lover. The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal, and the Bombay High Court set aside the verdict and ordered a retrial. However, the Supreme Court of India held that the retrial of Nanavati would be a violation of his right against double jeopardy, as he had already been acquitted by a competent court.
Another notable case in which the principle of double jeopardy was applied in India is the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014). In this case, the accused was charged with an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cruelty towards a woman by her husband or his relatives. The accused was arrested and released on bail. However, the prosecution filed an application for cancellation of the bail and a fresh arrest of the accused. The Supreme Court of India held that the re-arrest of the accused would amount to double jeopardy and that the accused cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
One example of the application of the principle of res judicata in India can be seen in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal Keshavlal Soni (1983). In this case, the accused was acquitted of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The State of Gujarat filed an appeal against the acquittal, which was dismissed by the High Court of Gujarat. The State of Gujarat then filed a revision petition in the Supreme Court of India, which was also dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata applied, and the accused could not be prosecuted again for the same offence.
Another example of the application of the principle of res judicata in India can be seen in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985). In this case, the claim of the respondent for pensionary benefits was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was dismissed. The respondent then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata applied, and the respondent could not re-agitate the same issue again in a subsequent proceeding.
In conclusion, the legal maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” is a principle of res judicata in Indian law, which provides that no person should be punished twice for the same offence or cause of action. This principle is recognized under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The principle of res judicata has been applied in many cases in India to prevent parties from re-litigating the same issue that has already been adjudicated upon in a previous proceeding.
