Judiciary : Constitutional, Civil and Criminal Courts and Processes

Given/Context: The question relates to the Supreme Court's power of judicial review over constitutional amendments.

Answer:

The Supreme Court can strike down a legislation aimed at amending the Constitution on the following two grounds:

1. Violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine: As laid down in *Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala* (1973), Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that destroys or abrogates its 'basic structure' or 'basic features'. If a constitutional amendment violates the basic structure (e.g., supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, independence of judiciary, fundamental rights, etc.), the Supreme Court can strike it down.

2. Violation of the Procedure prescribed under Article 368: If the amendment has not been passed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Article 368 of the Constitution (e.g., lack of required special majority, or absence of ratification by State Legislatures where required), the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional on the ground of procedural impropriety.

Conclusion: Thus, a constitutional amendment can be invalidated either for violating the substantive basic structure of the Constitution or for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Article 368.

Given/Context: The question relates to the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution of India.

Advisory Jurisdiction — Article 143: The President of India may refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The Supreme Court, after hearing the matter, may report its opinion to the President. Such an opinion is advisory and not binding.

(i) Re Kerala Education Bill Case (1958):

The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
- The Supreme Court may (not must) give its opinion; it has discretion to refuse if the question is ambiguous or not of public importance.
- The opinion given is not binding — it is merely advisory in nature.
- The Court held that it could examine the constitutionality of a Bill even before it becomes law, i.e., the advisory jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of a pending Bill.
- The Court clarified that the reference must involve a substantial question of law of public importance.

(ii) Re Special Court Bill Case (1979):

The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
- The Court reiterated that the advisory opinion is not a judicial pronouncement and is not binding on any court or party.
- The Court held that it is not obligatory for the Supreme Court to answer every reference; it retains the discretion to decline.
- The Court clarified that the advisory jurisdiction is a special and exceptional jurisdiction and must be exercised with caution.
- It was held that the Court can examine whether the Bill, if enacted, would be constitutionally valid.

Conclusion: Both cases affirm that the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 is discretionary, non-binding, and can be exercised even in respect of Bills before they become law.

Given/Context: The appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is governed by Article 124 of the Constitution of India.

Constitutional Provisions for Appointment of a Supreme Court Judge:

Article 124(2): Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President of India by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary.

Qualifications [Article 124(3)]: A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he/she:
- Is a citizen of India, AND
- Has been a Judge of a High Court (or two or more such Courts in succession) for at least five years, OR
- Has been an Advocate of a High Court (or two or more such Courts in succession) for at least ten years, OR
- Is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.

Collegium System: Through judicial pronouncements (the Three Judges Cases — 1982, 1993, 1998), the Supreme Court evolved the Collegium System. Under this system:
- The appointment of the Chief Justice of India is made on the basis of seniority.
- Appointments of other judges are made on the recommendation of the Collegium, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
- The President is bound by the recommendation of the Collegium (after the Second Judges Case, 1993).

Oath [Article 124(6)]: Every judge takes an oath before the President or a person appointed by him.

Tenure: A judge of the Supreme Court holds office until the age of 65 years [Article 124(2)].

Conclusion: The appointment of Supreme Court judges is a constitutional process involving the President and the Collegium, ensuring judicial independence.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Short Note

Introduction:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a procedural law that governs the procedure to be followed in civil courts in India. It came into force on 1st January, 1909 and applies to the whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir (now Union Territory) and certain tribal areas.

Structure:
The CPC consists of:
- 2 Parts: The Body (Sections 1–158) and the Schedule (Orders 1–51 with Rules).
- The Sections lay down the general principles, while the Orders and Rules provide the detailed procedure.

Objective:
The primary objective of the CPC is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of courts of civil judicature. It aims to ensure that civil disputes are decided in a fair, orderly, and efficient manner.

Key Provisions:
1. Jurisdiction of Courts: The CPC defines the jurisdiction of civil courts — territorial, pecuniary, and subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Plaint and Written Statement: It lays down the procedure for filing a plaint (by the plaintiff) and written statement (by the defendant).
3. Summons: Procedure for issuing summons to the defendant.
4. Framing of Issues: The court frames issues (points of dispute) to be decided.
5. Discovery and Inspection: Provisions for parties to discover documents.
6. Trial: Examination of witnesses, cross-examination, and arguments.
7. Judgment and Decree: The court pronounces judgment and passes a decree.
8. Execution of Decree: Provisions for enforcement of decrees.
9. Appeals, Reference, Review, and Revision: Remedies available after the decree.
10. Res Judicata (Section 11): A matter once decided cannot be re-litigated between the same parties.
11. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders: Interim relief to parties.

Amendments:
The CPC has been amended several times, notably in 1976 and 2002, to reduce delays and simplify procedures.

Conclusion:
The CPC is the backbone of civil litigation in India. It ensures that civil disputes are resolved through a structured, transparent, and just process, balancing the rights of both parties.

What is Jurisdiction?

Definition: Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority or power of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. It is derived from the Latin words *'juris'* (law) and *'dictio'* (to speak), meaning 'to speak the law'. A court can only adjudicate a matter if it has the requisite jurisdiction; otherwise, its decision will be null and void.

Types of Jurisdiction (Any Two):

1. Territorial Jurisdiction (also called Local Jurisdiction):
- Every court has a defined geographical area within which it can exercise its authority.
- A court can only hear cases that arise within its territorial limits.
- *Example:* A District Court in Delhi can only hear cases arising within the territorial limits of Delhi. It cannot hear a case arising in Mumbai.
- In civil matters, the suit is generally filed where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises [Section 20, CPC].
- In criminal matters, the case is tried where the offence was committed [Section 177, CrPC].

2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction:
- Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the monetary value or financial limit of cases that a court is empowered to try.
- Different courts are empowered to hear cases involving different amounts of money.
- *Example:* A Munsiff Court may hear civil suits up to a certain monetary value (e.g., up to ₹1 lakh), while a District Court may hear suits of higher value. The High Court has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction in original civil matters.
- This ensures that cases of smaller financial value are decided at the lower court level, reducing the burden on higher courts.

Other types of jurisdiction (for reference): Subject-matter jurisdiction, Original jurisdiction, Appellate jurisdiction, Advisory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept in law that determines which court is competent to hear a particular case. Without proper jurisdiction, any order passed by a court is without legal effect.

Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India

Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of appeal in the country. Its appellate jurisdiction means the power to hear appeals against the decisions of lower courts. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is provided under Articles 132, 133, 134, and 136 of the Constitution.

1. Appeals in Constitutional Matters [Article 132]:
- An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court (whether in civil, criminal, or other proceedings) if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
- If the High Court refuses to grant the certificate, the Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal.

2. Appeals in Civil Matters [Article 133]:
- An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court in a civil proceeding if the High Court certifies:
- (a) That the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, AND
- (b) That in the opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.

3. Appeals in Criminal Matters [Article 134]:
The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters in the following cases:
- (a) If the High Court has reversed an order of acquittal of an accused and sentenced him to death.
- (b) If the High Court has withdrawn a case from a subordinate court and convicted the accused and sentenced him to death.
- (c) If the High Court certifies that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.
- Parliament may by law extend the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in criminal matters.

4. Special Leave to Appeal [Article 136]:
- This is the most important and wide-ranging appellate power of the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India (except military tribunals).
- This is an extraordinary jurisdiction and is exercised sparingly, only when there is a grave miscarriage of justice or a substantial question of law is involved.
- It is not a matter of right but of the court's discretion.

Conclusion:
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court ensures that justice is not denied due to errors by lower courts. It acts as the final arbiter of law and protects the rights of citizens by correcting erroneous decisions of High Courts and other tribunals.

Three Stages in the Procedure for Administration of Criminal Justice in India

The administration of criminal justice in India follows a structured procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The entire process can be broadly divided into three stages:

---

Stage 1: Investigation

This is the first stage of the criminal justice process.

- When a cognizable offence is committed, the police register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the CrPC.
- For non-cognizable offences, the police require the permission of a Magistrate before investigating.
- The police then conduct an investigation, which includes:
- Visiting the scene of crime
- Collecting evidence (physical, documentary, forensic)
- Examining witnesses
- Arresting the accused (if necessary)
- Recording statements
- After completing the investigation, the police file a Charge Sheet (Final Report) under Section 173 CrPC before the competent Magistrate if sufficient evidence is found, or a closure report if no evidence is found.

---

Stage 2: Inquiry / Committal Proceedings (Pre-Trial)

- On receiving the charge sheet, the Magistrate examines it and decides whether there is sufficient ground to proceed.
- If the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate conducts a committal proceeding and commits the case to the Sessions Court.
- The Magistrate may also take cognizance of the offence and issue summons or warrants to the accused.
- The accused is brought before the court, and charges are framed against him/her.
- The accused is asked to plead — guilty or not guilty.
- If the accused pleads guilty, the court may convict; if not guilty, the case proceeds to trial.

---

Stage 3: Trial

This is the final and most important stage.

- The trial is conducted before the competent court (Magistrate's Court or Sessions Court depending on the nature of the offence).
- The prosecution presents its evidence first — examination-in-chief, cross-examination by defence, and re-examination.
- The accused is given an opportunity to present his/her defence.
- After hearing both sides, the court pronounces its judgment.
- If convicted, the court passes the sentence.
- The aggrieved party may file an appeal before a higher court.

---

Conclusion:
The three stages — Investigation, Inquiry, and Trial — together form a comprehensive system that ensures that the guilty are punished and the innocent are protected, upholding the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Six Stages in a Criminal Trial

A criminal trial in India follows a systematic procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The six stages are:

---

Stage 1: Framing of Charges

- After the accused is brought before the court and the court takes cognizance of the offence, charges are framed against the accused.
- The charge is a formal written statement specifying the offence the accused is alleged to have committed.
- The charges are read out and explained to the accused in a language he/she understands.
- The accused is asked whether he/she pleads guilty or not guilty.
- If the accused pleads guilty, the court may convict him/her. If not guilty, the trial proceeds.

---

Stage 2: Prosecution Evidence (Examination of Prosecution Witnesses)

- The prosecution (the State) presents its case first, as the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
- The prosecution examines its witnesses (examination-in-chief).
- The defence lawyer then cross-examines the prosecution witnesses to challenge their credibility and the evidence.
- The prosecution may then re-examine its witnesses to clarify any points raised in cross-examination.
- Documentary and physical evidence is also produced and exhibited.

---

Stage 3: Statement of the Accused [Section 313 CrPC]

- After the prosecution evidence is complete, the court examines the accused personally under Section 313 CrPC.
- The purpose is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him/her.
- The accused is not required to take an oath and cannot be punished for refusing to answer or for giving false answers.
- This stage ensures that the accused is heard before any decision is made.

---

Stage 4: Defence Evidence

- The accused has the right to present his/her defence.
- The accused may examine defence witnesses (examination-in-chief).
- The prosecution then cross-examines the defence witnesses.
- The accused may also produce documentary evidence in support of the defence.
- The accused is not compelled to be a witness against himself/herself (Article 20(3) of the Constitution).

---

Stage 5: Final Arguments (Closing Arguments)

- After all evidence is recorded, both sides present their final arguments (oral and/or written) before the court.
- The prosecution argues first, summarising the evidence and urging the court to convict the accused.
- The defence then presents its arguments, pointing out weaknesses in the prosecution's case and seeking acquittal.
- The prosecution may be given a right of reply in certain cases.

---

Stage 6: Judgment

- After hearing the arguments, the court pronounces its judgment — either conviction or acquittal.
- If the accused is acquitted, he/she is set free.
- If the accused is convicted, the court proceeds to hear arguments on sentencing.
- The court then passes the sentence — imprisonment, fine, or both, depending on the nature of the offence.
- The convicted person has the right to appeal before a higher court.

---

Conclusion:
The six stages of a criminal trial — Framing of Charges, Prosecution Evidence, Statement of Accused, Defence Evidence, Final Arguments, and Judgment — ensure a fair, transparent, and just process, upholding the principles of natural justice.

Functions Performed by Police

The police are the primary law enforcement agency in India. Their functions are both preventive and investigative in nature. The police derive their powers and functions primarily from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Police Act, 1861 (and various State Police Acts).

Key Functions of Police:

1. Prevention of Crime:
- The most important function of the police is to prevent the commission of offences.
- Police patrol areas, maintain surveillance, and take preventive action to deter criminal activity.
- They can arrest persons likely to commit offences and take preventive measures under the CrPC.

2. Registration of FIR:
- When a cognizable offence is reported, the police are duty-bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 CrPC.
- The FIR sets the criminal justice process in motion.
- Refusal to register an FIR is an offence and the aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or the Magistrate.

3. Investigation of Crimes:
- After registering the FIR, the police investigate the offence.
- Investigation includes visiting the scene of crime, collecting evidence, examining witnesses, recording statements, and arresting the accused.
- After investigation, the police file a Charge Sheet (if evidence is found) or a Closure Report before the Magistrate.

4. Arrest of Accused:
- Police have the power to arrest persons accused of committing cognizable offences without a warrant.
- For non-cognizable offences, a warrant from the Magistrate is required.
- The arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

5. Maintenance of Law and Order:
- Police are responsible for maintaining public peace and order.
- They manage crowds during public events, elections, communal tensions, and natural disasters.
- They can use reasonable force to disperse unlawful assemblies.

6. Collection of Intelligence:
- Police gather intelligence about criminal activities, anti-social elements, and threats to national security.
- This helps in preventing crimes before they occur.

7. Assistance to Courts:
- Police assist courts by producing accused persons, serving summons and warrants, and executing orders of the court.
- They also provide security to courts and witnesses.

8. Protection of Rights of Citizens:
- Police are duty-bound to protect the fundamental rights and legal rights of citizens.
- They must ensure that arrested persons are not subjected to torture or illegal detention.

Conclusion:
The police play a crucial role in the criminal justice system. Their functions range from prevention and investigation of crimes to maintaining public order and assisting the judiciary. However, their powers must be exercised within the framework of law to prevent abuse and protect civil liberties.

Given Facts:
- Ms. Anukriti is a victim of chain snatching (a cognizable offence).
- She went to the police station to file an FIR.
- The officer in charge was not available.

Legal Provision: Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) governs the registration of FIR.

---

(i) Who is competent to file the FIR in the absence of the officer in charge?

Under Section 154 CrPC, every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction.

In the absence of the officer in charge, any other police officer present at the police station is competent to receive and record the FIR. The duty to register an FIR is not restricted to the officer in charge alone — any officer on duty at the police station can record the information.

Chain snatching is a cognizable offence (theft/robbery), and therefore the police are duty-bound to register the FIR without any delay.

Answer: In the absence of the officer in charge, any other police officer present at the police station is competent to receive and register the FIR on behalf of Ms. Anukriti.

---

(ii) What if the officer in charge was present but refused to file the FIR? What remedy is available to Ms. Anukriti?

If the officer in charge refuses to register the FIR, Ms. Anukriti has the following remedies under Section 154(3) CrPC:

Remedy 1 — Complaint to the Superintendent of Police (SP):
- Ms. Anukriti can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the district.
- If the SP is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, he shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation by a subordinate police officer.

Remedy 2 — Complaint before the Magistrate [Section 156(3) CrPC]:
- Ms. Anukriti can file a complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction.
- The Magistrate can order the police to register the FIR and investigate the matter.

Remedy 3 — Writ Petition before the High Court:
- Ms. Anukriti can also approach the High Court by filing a writ petition (mandamus) directing the police to register the FIR.

Remedy 4 — Zero FIR:
- Ms. Anukriti can file a Zero FIR at any police station (not necessarily the one having jurisdiction), which must be transferred to the appropriate police station.

Conclusion:
The law mandates registration of FIR for cognizable offences. Refusal to register an FIR is illegal, and Ms. Anukriti has multiple legal remedies available to ensure her complaint is registered and investigated.

Given Facts:
- Mr. Ranjeet Sahay is a journalist.
- He openly criticized a Supreme Court judgment on his TV programme.

Issue: Whether criticism of a Supreme Court judgment amounts to contempt of court, and whether the Supreme Court can take action.

---

Analysis:

Freedom of Speech and Expression [Article 19(1)(a)]:
Every citizen of India, including journalists, has the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This includes the right to criticize judgments of courts.

However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which includes restrictions in the interest of contempt of court.

---

Contempt of Court:

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines contempt of court. It is of two types:
1. Civil Contempt — wilful disobedience of a court order.
2. Criminal Contempt — publication of any matter that:
- Scandalises or tends to scandalise the court, OR
- Prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, OR
- Interferes with the administration of justice.

Constitutional Provision:
The Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt is provided under Article 129 of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

Similarly, Article 142(2) empowers the Supreme Court to investigate and punish any person for contempt.

---

Is Criticism Allowed?

- Fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment, after it is pronounced, is permissible and does not amount to contempt of court. Citizens and journalists have the right to comment on and criticize judicial decisions in good faith.
- However, if the criticism is scurrilous, malicious, or tends to scandalise the court or lower its authority in the eyes of the public, it may amount to criminal contempt.
- The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 added 'truth' as a valid defence — if the criticism is based on truth and is in public interest, it is a valid defence.

---

Conclusion:

- Fair criticism of a Supreme Court judgment by Mr. Ranjeet Sahay is allowed under Article 19(1)(a).
- However, if his criticism is scandalous, malicious, or tends to lower the dignity of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court can take action against him for contempt of court under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- The relevant article is Article 129 (Supreme Court as a court of record with power to punish for contempt).

Given Facts:
- Varun is 9 years old.
- He hit another boy with a rock during a quarrel.
- He lacks maturity to understand the gravity of his actions.

---

(i) Would Varun be punished for the criminal act?

No, Varun would NOT be punished for the criminal act.

Legal Provision: Under Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

*"Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age."*

Under Section 83 of the IPC:

*"Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion."*

Since Varun is 9 years old (above 7 but below 12), he falls under Section 83 IPC. Since the facts state that he lacks maturity to understand the gravity and consequences of his actions, he is protected from criminal liability.

Therefore, Varun cannot be held criminally liable and will not be punished for the act.

---

(ii) Relation between Age and Criminal Liability:

The IPC recognises that children below a certain age lack the mental capacity (mens rea) to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. Therefore, the law provides for different levels of criminal liability based on age:

| Age Group | Legal Position | Provision |
|---|---|---|
| Below 7 years | Absolute immunity — No criminal liability whatsoever. The child is conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing a crime. | Section 82, IPC |
| 7 to 12 years | Conditional immunity — No criminal liability IF the child has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of the act. If the child has sufficient maturity, he/she can be held liable. | Section 83, IPC |
| Above 12 years | The child can be held criminally liable, but is dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 if below 18 years. |
| 18 years and above | Full criminal liability under the IPC and other laws. |

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015:
- Children between 16 and 18 years who commit heinous offences may be tried as adults by the Juvenile Justice Board, which can transfer the case to the Children's Court.
- The focus of the juvenile justice system is on reformation and rehabilitation, not punishment.

Rationale:
The law is based on the principle of doli incapax (incapable of crime) — a child below a certain age is presumed to be incapable of forming criminal intent (*mens rea*), which is an essential element of a crime.

Conclusion:
Varun, being 9 years old and lacking maturity, is protected under Section 83 IPC and cannot be held criminally liable. The law recognises that age and mental maturity are crucial factors in determining criminal responsibility.

Given Facts:
- In 2010, Madhu was arrested for attempt to murder.
- After trial, she was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
- In 2021, the question is whether she can be tried again for the same offence.

---

Answer: No, Madhu CANNOT be tried again for the same offence.

---

Relevant Doctrine: Double Jeopardy

The principle that protects Madhu is the doctrine of Double Jeopardy — *"No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."*

Constitutional Provision:

Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India states:
*"No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."*

This is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

Statutory Provision:

Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) provides:
*"A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Section 221(1), or for which he might have been convicted under Section 221(2)."*

---

Application to Madhu's Case:

- Madhu was tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for attempt to murder.
- She was acquitted after a full trial.
- The acquittal is still in force.
- Therefore, under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC, she cannot be tried again for the same offence of attempt to murder.

---

Exceptions (Important Note):

However, there are certain exceptions to this rule:
1. If the acquittal was obtained by fraud or by suppression of evidence, a fresh trial may be ordered.
2. The State can file an appeal against the acquittal before a higher court (this is not a fresh trial but an appeal).
3. If the subsequent offence is different from the original offence (e.g., if the victim later dies and the charge becomes murder), a fresh trial for the new offence is permissible.

---

Conclusion:
Madhu is fully protected by the doctrine of Double Jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC. She cannot be tried again in 2021 for the same offence of attempt to murder for which she was acquitted in 2010. The law ensures that no person is subjected to the harassment of multiple trials for the same offence.

Given Facts:
- Sanjay is arrested for theft.
- Police asks him to submit: (a) DNA sample, (b) Handwriting sample, (c) Personal diary, (d) Forced to be a witness against himself.

---

(i) Which among the above he CANNOT be asked to submit?

Sanjay CANNOT be asked to:
- (c) Submit his personal diary — if it contains self-incriminating statements, compelling him to produce it would violate his right against self-incrimination.
- (d) Be forced to be a witness against himself — this is a direct violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Regarding (a) DNA sample and (b) Handwriting sample:
- The Supreme Court in *State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad* (1961) held that giving a handwriting sample, thumb impression, blood sample, or DNA sample does not amount to being a witness against oneself under Article 20(3), as these are physical evidence and not testimonial evidence.
- Therefore, Sanjay can be asked to provide DNA sample and handwriting sample.

Summary:
| Item | Can be asked? | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| (a) DNA sample | Yes | Physical evidence, not testimonial |
| (b) Handwriting sample | Yes | Physical evidence, not testimonial |
| (c) Personal diary | No (if self-incriminating) | Testimonial/communicative evidence |
| (d) Witness against himself | No | Violates Article 20(3) |

---

(ii) Rights of the Accused and Arrested — Discussion:

The Constitution of India and the CrPC provide several important rights to accused and arrested persons:

1. Right Against Self-Incrimination [Article 20(3)]:
- *"No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."*
- This means an accused cannot be forced to give testimonial evidence that incriminates him.
- However, this does not protect against providing physical evidence like blood samples, fingerprints, DNA, or handwriting samples (*Kathi Kalu Oghad* case).
- Sanjay cannot be forced to be a witness against himself — option (d) is a clear violation.

2. Right to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest [Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC]:
- Every arrested person has the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.
- Sanjay must be told why he is being arrested.

3. Right to Consult a Legal Practitioner [Article 22(1)]:
- Every arrested person has the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of his choice.

4. Right to be Produced before a Magistrate within 24 Hours [Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC]:
- Sanjay must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest (excluding travel time).
- No person can be detained beyond 24 hours without the authority of a Magistrate.

5. Right to Bail:
- In cases of bailable offences (theft may be bailable depending on the value), Sanjay has the right to be released on bail.

6. Right to Fair Trial:
- Sanjay has the right to a fair and speedy trial, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present his defence.

7. Protection Against Double Jeopardy [Article 20(2)]:
- Sanjay cannot be tried twice for the same offence.

8. Protection Against Ex Post Facto Laws [Article 20(1)]:
- Sanjay cannot be convicted under a law that did not exist at the time of the alleged offence.

Conclusion:
Sanjay cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself (option d) and cannot be forced to produce self-incriminating documents like his personal diary (option c). The rights of the accused are fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to ensure a fair and just criminal justice system.

Given Facts:
- A criminal case where the maximum punishment could be capital punishment (death penalty).

---

(i) Which court is competent to hear the case?

A case involving capital punishment (death sentence) is a Sessions triable offence — it is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions (Sessions Court).

Legal Provision: Under the First Schedule of the CrPC, offences punishable with death are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.

- The Sessions Court (presided over by a Sessions Judge) is the competent court to try such cases.
- However, a death sentence passed by the Sessions Court must be confirmed by the High Court before it can be executed [Section 366 CrPC].
- The accused also has the right to appeal to the High Court and further to the Supreme Court.
- The convict may also file a mercy petition before the Governor of the State or the President of India under Articles 161 and 72 of the Constitution respectively.

Answer: The Court of Sessions (Sessions Court) is the competent court to hear a case involving capital punishment.

---

(ii) Flow Chart of Hierarchy of Criminal Courts in India:

$$\boxed{\textbf{Hierarchy of Criminal Courts in India}}$$

$$\text{Supreme Court of India}$$
$$\downarrow$$
$$\text{High Court}$$
$$\downarrow$$
$$\text{Court of Sessions (Sessions Judge / Additional Sessions Judge / Assistant Sessions Judge)}$$
$$\downarrow$$
$$\text{Chief Judicial Magistrate / Chief Metropolitan Magistrate}$$
$$\downarrow$$
$$\text{Judicial Magistrate First Class / Metropolitan Magistrate}$$
$$\downarrow$$
$$\text{Judicial Magistrate Second Class}$$
$$\downarrow$$
$$\text{Executive Magistrate (for certain limited purposes)}$$

Details of the Hierarchy:

| Court | Presiding Officer | Maximum Sentence that can be awarded |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Chief Justice of India + Judges | Unlimited (final appellate court) |
| High Court | Chief Justice + Judges | Unlimited (appellate + original) |
| Sessions Court | Sessions Judge | Death, Life Imprisonment, any term (death sentence requires HC confirmation) |
| Additional Sessions Judge | Additional Sessions Judge | Same as Sessions Judge |
| Assistant Sessions Judge | Assistant Sessions Judge | Up to 10 years imprisonment |
| Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) | CJM | Up to 7 years imprisonment |
| Judicial Magistrate 1st Class | JMFC | Up to 3 years imprisonment + fine |
| Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class | JMSC | Up to 1 year imprisonment + fine |

Note: In metropolitan areas, the hierarchy includes Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrate instead of CJM and JMFC.

Conclusion:
For a case involving capital punishment, the Sessions Court is the court of first instance. The death sentence must be confirmed by the High Court, and further appeals lie to the Supreme Court. The hierarchy ensures that serious offences are tried by senior and experienced judges, with multiple layers of appeal to prevent miscarriage of justice.