P. Manikandan vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Held: In the present case, the High Court acquitted the appellant and directed to transfer the documents and relevant material to conduct the de novo investigation before CBI on the same facts for the same offences and to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law, by exercising the power u/s.386 of Cr.P.C – S.386(b) of Cr.P.C and also various judgments of the Supreme Court speak of retrial and not reinvestigation – S.173(8) of the Cr.P.C provides for further investigation with the permission of the magistrate, but not re-investigation – Such a concept, as it appears, is only invoked in extraneous circumstances – The mere observation that the investigating authorities may have taken a lackadaisical ethical approach does not warrant the accused being put through the wringer once more for the same offence – The transfer to CBI, as already observed must take place in special circumstances – The High Court has not referred to any such special circumstance arising in the present case – The direction of the High Court, transferring the investigation to CBI and directing them to re-investigate the offence allegedly committed, was without the authority of law and, therefore, has to be set aside – As far as principle of double jeopardy is concerned, the three conditions were laid down in T.P. Gopalakrishnan: 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 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 – In the present facts, a previous proceeding did take place wherein the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death – There is no question as to the Court's competence or jurisdiction – The first condition is, therefore, met – The acquittal awarded by the High Court has to remain in force for the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty applies and cannot be displaced in except in circumstances otherwise provided by law – The second principle is also met – Regarding the third condition, had the order been for retrial, the court could have held that the condition remained unmet; however, since the direction was for re-investigation and that too by a different investigation agency, it necessarily has to begin from zero – Hence, the second investigation, chargesheet and examination of witnesses would classify as meeting the third condition – In view of the discussion, this Court is of the view that the right enshrined in Article 20(2) of the appellant stands violated. [Paras 12, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Retrial and Reinvestigation difference:

Held: There exists a clear difference between retrial and reinvestigation – Retrial implies that the judicial process that starts after the investigation of the crime is complete shall be redone from the start, whereas the latter implies that the police and other investigating authorities are once again required to collect and examine evidence in order to present charges before a Court, so that the trial can commence on such freshly collected evidence. [Para 23]