1.Article 20 (2) of the constitution of India states " NO PERSON SHALL BE PROSECUTED AND PUNISHED FOR THE SAME OFFENCEMORE THAN ONCE."
2. Sec. 26 of the General clause Act 1897 says: Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments,but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.
The question is :
1. Is a simultaneous prosection under Section 20 (1) (d) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act-2005 and also U/S 125 Cr.P.C. contrary to the aforesaid Article of the Constitution 20(2) and also to Sec. 26 of General Clause Act 1897.
ANS : an expert said in the other forum: "First of all please note that proceedings under SEc.125 is not criminal prosecution at all. It is for claim of maintenance. Therefore in your case doctrine of double jeopardy has no application at all.. "
QUESTION : CRPC 125 is criminal case if we read it's prefix (CRPC) but its run in family court, when we look into Indian Constitution article 20(2) does not mention anything like CRIMINAL or NONCRIMINAL but they talk about ""PROSECUTED AND PUNISHED FOR THE SAME OFFENCEMORE THAN ONCE.""
But to the contrary Sec. 26 of General Clause Act 1897 "" the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments"" by reading this above line its is indirectly implies Criminal procuation ""offender "" so I would like to still go ahead and ask the same question as other friend asked.
Once CRPC 125 case trial completes and gives judgment awarding amount XXXX to petitioner, how can the same petitioner askes for the same relief of XXXX amount because of the same offence again under DVC ACT?
why Is this not called ""Double jeopardy"" ???
Seniors please explain this LAW in detail.