Supreme Court of India

State of Bombay v S.L. Apte

AIR 1961 SC 57819601 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The respondents were convicted under S.105 of the Insurance Act for wrongful withholding of property of an insurer, and were then tried under S.409 IPC for criminal breach of trust on the same facts.
Issue
Whether the second prosecution was for the "same offence" under Article 20(2) and S.26 of the General Clauses Act.
Held
The bar applies only where the offences are the same, which is judged by their ingredients and not by the overlap of facts. S.409 IPC requires entrustment and dishonest intention, which S.105 does not. The offences were distinct and the second trial was not barred.
Principle
Same offence means an offence with the same ingredients, not merely one arising from the same facts.
Cite this

Facts

  • The respondents were convicted under S.105 of the Insurance Act for wrongful withholding of property of an insurer, and were then tried under S.409 IPC for criminal breach of trust on the same facts.

Issue

  1. Whether the second prosecution was for the "same offence" under Article 20(2) and S.26 of the General Clauses Act.

Held

  • The bar applies only where the offences are the same, which is judged by their ingredients and not by the overlap of facts. S.409 IPC requires entrustment and dishonest intention, which S.105 does not. The offences were distinct and the second trial was not barred.

Cite this

Citation

State of Bombay v S.L. Apte AIR 1961 SC 578

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/701326/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.