Skip to main content

nemo debet bis vexari

 NEMO DEBET BIS VEXARI 


The Latin expression “Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa” which stands as “no one should be punished twice for the same crime. It incorporates a well-established law that no one should be punished twice for the same crime. In criminal law, this Latin word is known as a law against double jeopardy, i.e. the notion that a person should not be “offended” or punished more than once for any crime brought against him. In civil law, it means that a person should not be charged more than once in the same case.


“Double jeopardy” refers to being protected from prosecution or punishment more than once for the same criminal offense. It prevents the issuance of multiple penalties for the same offense.


Article 20 of the Constitution of India emphasizes protection from double danger: It is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India, which states— “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Once. ”It prohibits punishment for“ one crime ”more than once.


However there is an exception where a person is not protected under Section 20 (2)- 


If one act and another person commits two separate offenses, the punishment of one offense will not preclude the punishment of the other.

If a set of similar facts constitutes a case under more than one rule of law, it will not attract the risk of double jeopardy. In such a case, the various prosecutions and punishments against the various crimes will not be precluded.

If there are two separate cases with different ingredients under two different rules, made by the same person, the principle of double risk will not apply.


Case laws


In SA Venkataraman vs Union of India, it was thought that, in order to attract the provisions of Section 20 (2) of the Constitution, there should be both prosecution and punishment in relation to “the same offense”. The words “persecution” and “punishment” should be taken literally, to mean persecution or punishment. Both of these elements must be combined in order for the clause to apply.


In the case of  Maqbool Hussain vs State of Bombay, it was considered a test that the previous case and the present case had the same ingredients in the sense that the facts constitute one were sufficient to justify the conviction of another, not that. The facts on which the prosecutor relies are the same in both cases.



Conclusion 


Nemo debet bes vexari is a latin maxim which establishes a rule that no person shall be booked for the same offence twice , it is an important perspective of justice in india , because otherwise it would be an arbitrary means for the people to be considered a bait for injustice . it is an important mean for the development of legal and social justice. At present, the system also takes into account the interests of the public and the Government. Judgments of the judges must be accepted as valid otherwise if the case is allowed to be filed indefinitely for the same reason it will not be possible for the existing court to deal with the ever-increasing number of cases.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more