With respect to conviction for an offence in India, which of the following…
2023
With respect to conviction for an offence in India, which of the following statements is correct?
Answer: D. More than one of the above — ConceptArticle 20 of the Constitution protects a person in criminal matters against retrospective conviction or a harsher retrospective penalty, repeated…
- A.
The provision of double jeopardy is not found in the Constitution of India.
- B.
The protection from a penalty greater than that permitted by the law in force when the offence was committed is found in the Constitution.
- C.
The judicial and the departmental actions may be taken against a government servant for the same offence in the country.
- D.
More than one of the above
- E.
None of the above
Attempted by 4 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept
Article 20 of the Constitution protects a person in criminal matters against retrospective conviction or a harsher retrospective penalty, repeated prosecution and punishment for the same offence, and compelled self-incrimination.
A departmental proceeding is disciplinary rather than a second criminal prosecution. Because its purpose and standard of proof differ from those of a criminal case, both tracks may ordinarily continue, although a court may stay the departmental case in suitable circumstances.
Application
The claim that the Constitution does not contain double jeopardy conflicts with Article 20(2), which bars prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once.
The penalty safeguard follows Article 20(1): the penalty cannot exceed what the law in force at the time of the act permitted.
The statement about judicial and departmental action follows service-law doctrine: criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings may be taken on the same facts because they serve different purposes and apply different standards of proof.
Thus, two substantive statements are supported—the penalty safeguard and the permissibility of judicial plus departmental proceedings.
Contrast
The statement denying a constitutional double-jeopardy provision conflicts with the express text of Article 20(2).
The statement about protection from a greater penalty reflects Article 20(1), read as a bar on a harsher penalty than the law allowed when the act occurred.
The statement about judicial and departmental proceedings reflects their distinct legal purposes and standards.
The aggregate phrase “More than one of the above” fits when at least two substantive statements are supported.
The aggregate phrase “None of the above” requires every substantive statement to fail, which is not the resulting legal assessment.
Result
The supported answer is “More than one of the above.”