Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing T P Gopalakrishnan vs The State Of Kerala on 8 December, 2022

P. Manikandan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 19 December, 2024

31. In our considered view, the position of law that the principle applies is unquestionable. The three conditions laid down in T.P. Gopalakrishnan (supra) are: Firstly, there must have been previous proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction in which the person must have been 34 (2011) 1 SCC 284 35 (2012) 7 SCC 621 25 | SLP (Crl) No. 8700 of 2023 prosecuted. The said prosecution must be valid and not null and void or abortive. Secondly, the conviction or acquittal in the previous proceeding must be in force at the time of the second proceeding in relation to the same offence and same set of facts, for which he was prosecuted and punished in the first proceeding. Thirdly, the subsequent proceeding must be a fresh proceeding, where he is, for the second time, sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence and same set of facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - S Karol - Full Document

Indrajit Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2025

The main grievance of the applicant is that while passing the said order, this Court has not taken into consideration case the law laid down in case of in Case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2022 (0) SCC 1268. There is nothing to show that any such case law was cited at the time of hearing of the application u/s 482 CrPC. The contention that while passing the impugned order dated 05.09.2024, this Court has failed to consider the provisions of Section 300(1) CrPC, is wholly incorrect and misconceived and thus, not tenable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R B Singh - Full Document

Subhash Pahwa @ Subhash Chander vs State Ofnct Of Delhi And Ors on 28 October, 2025

9. Article 20(2) of the Constitution declares that "no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once". Section 300(1) CrPC gives statutory expression to this principle, embodying the pleas of autrefois convict and autrefois acquit, and prohibiting a second trial for "the same offence" or on "the same facts" after a conviction or acquittal by a competent court. Section 300(2) extends this protection to bar a subsequent trial for any "other offence" that could have been charged in the earlier proceedings under Section 221 CrPC on the same facts. 9.1. The governing test is the identity of the ingredients and factual substratum, not mere thematic similarity. Where the offences are distinct in their essential ingredients, a second prosecution may lie even if narratives intersect8. Conversely, as held in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao & Anr.9 and T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala10, a second prosecution founded on the same criminal act, or on a cognate offence that could and should have been charged in the first trial on the same facts, is barred by Section 300 CrPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Ravi @ Pokkai Ravi vs Union Territory Of Puducherry on 28 June, 2024

In the case of T.P.Gopalakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 14 SC 323, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the protection against double jeopardy is also included under the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence, prosecuting a person for the same offence, for which he was previously convicted and suffered the punishment, affects the person's right to live with dignity.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

P.Kaliammal vs State Represented By on 4 July, 2024

In the case of T.P.Gopalakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 14 SC 323, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the protection against double jeopardy is also included under the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence, prosecuting a person for the same offence, for which he was previously convicted and suffered the punishment, affects the person's right to live with dignity.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next