SHAMSUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the F. I. R. dated 10-5-1998 lodged under Section 2 (b) (i) and Section 3, U. P. Gangsters and, Anti Social Ac tivities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner which has been registered as Case Crime No. 53 of 1998 of PS. Gangeeri, district Aligarh.

(2.) WE have perused the F. I. R. and the allegations made therein clearly make out a case under the Act against the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is not possible 10 quash the F. I. R. in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) IN the case of Subhash (supra) the Bench was of the opinion that the protec tion against double jeopardy may not only mean protection against double convic tion but would also mean protection against being doubly arrested. With profound respect to learned members of Division Bench, we are unable to agree with the principle Laid down in para 19 of the reports. The doctrine of double jeopar dy was introduced by way of amendment in the American Constitution though it was not there in the original Constitution as it was adopted on July 4, 1776. The Fifth Amendment to the American Constitu tion which came into effect on November 3,1791 provides as under; "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. " IN English Law the maxim "nemo debet bis vexari" is followed which means a man must not be put twice in peril for the same offence. Though framers of our con stitution borrowed heavily from English and American Constitution but the prin ciple was incorporated in an altogether different form in the Chapter relating to Fundamental Rights in Para-III of the Constitution. Article 20 (2) of the Con stitution reads as follows;