Acquittal Can't Be Reopened by a Later Sanction: Supreme Court Quashes Second 'Waging War' Trial, Citing Double Jeopardy

The appellant was tried under Sections 121, 121-A, 122 and 123 IPC in a sessions trial arising from FIR No. 106/2000 and acquitted on 18.05.2007 for want of sufficient evidence (paras 2-3). The Allahabad High Court dismissed the State's appeal in 2019, confirming his acquittal while observing that the issue of want of sanction could not be faulted (para 4). The State then obtained sanction on 31.07.2020 and began fresh proceedings. On 17.08.2022 the High Court refused to quash them under Section 482 CrPC, holding the first trial to be without jurisdiction for want of sanction under Section 196 CrPC (para 5).

Calling this a second round of litigation in a criminal case on the same charges after the first had become conclusive, the Court noted that the High Court had confirmed the acquittal after considering the lack of material, and that decision had attained finality (paras 7-8). The earlier trial could not be termed void ab initio: the trial court found no evidence against the appellant, and a mere observation by the High Court while dismissing the State's appeal did not give the State jurisdiction to start all over again (para 9). The dismissal of the appeal against acquittal strengthened the presumption of innocence, and fresh proceedings on the same facts and evidence violate Article 20(2) of the Constitution (para 9). Having charged and tried him, the State could not call the earlier decision a nullity; had he been convicted, it would not have raised that plea (para 10). Continuing the trial would amount to reviewing a final acquittal, and even serious allegations do not constitute an offence without adequate material (paras 10-11).