Esher Singh Vs State of AP (2004) 11 SCC 585

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under "Crucial words in the provision are "charged and tried". The use of the expression "charged and tried" imposes cumulative conditions. Firstly, the two persons who are the accused and the co- accused in the sense used by the legislature under Section 15, must be charged in the same trial, and secondly, they must be tried together. Kalpnath Rai case has been overruled in Nalini case making the position clear that the confession of a co- accused is substantive evidence."

Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and another Vs L R Melwani and another AIR 1970 SC 962

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"the question is whether that prosecution is barred under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution which says that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This Article has no direct bearing on the question at issue. Evidently those accused persons want to spell out from this Article the rule of autre fois acquit embodied in S.403, Criminal Procedure Code. Assuming we can do that, still it is not possible to hold that a proceeding before the Collector of Customs is a prosecution for an offence. In order to get the benefit of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code or Article 20 (2), it is necessary for an accused person to establish that he had been tried by a "Court of competent jurisdiction" for an offence and he is convicted or acquitted of that offence and the said conviction or acquittal is in force....."

K G Premshanker Vs Inspector of Police (2002) 8 SCC 87

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is -- (1) the previous judgment which is final can be relied upon as provided under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act; (2) in civil suits between the same parties, principle of res judicata may apply; (3) in a criminal case, Section 300 CrPC makes provision that once a person is convicted or acquitted, he may not be tried again for the same offence if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied; (4) if the criminal case and the civil proceedings are for the same cause, judgment of the civil court would be relevant if conditions of any of Sections 40 to 43 are satisfied, but it cannot be said that the same would be conclusive except as provided in Section 41. Section 41 provides which judgment would be conclusive proof of what is stated therein"

Leo Roy FRey Vs The Suprentendent District Jail Amritsar and Another AIR 1958 SC 119

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed -It is true that the Collector of Customs has used the words 'punishment' and 'conspiracy', but those words were used in order to bring out that each of the two petitioners was guilty of the offence under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The petitioners were not and could never be charged with criminal conspiracy before the Collector of Customs and therefore Art. 20(2) cannot be invoked.

Monica Bedi Vs State of AP

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, -Article 20 (2) embodies a protection against a second trial and conviction for the same offence. The fundamental right guaranteed is the manifestation of a long struggle by the mankind for human rights. A similar guarantee is to be found in almost all civilised societies governed by rule of law. The well known maxim `nemo delset bis vexari pro eadem causa; embodies the well established common law rule that no one should be put on peril twice for the same offence. BLACKSTONE referred to this universal maxim of the common law of England that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.
The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20 (2) has its roots in common law maxim nemo debet bis vexari - a man shall not be brought into danger for one and the same offence more than once. If a person is charged again for the same offence, he can plead, as a complete defence, his former conviction, or as it is technically expressed, take the plea of autrefois convict. This in essence is the common law principle. The corresponding provision in the American Constitution is enshrined in that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The principle has been recognised in the existing law in India and is enacted in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This was the inspiration and background for incorporating sub- clause (2) into Article 20 of the Constitution. But the ambit and content of the guaranteed fundamental right are much narrower than those of the common law in England or the doctrine of `double jeopardy' in the American Constitution.
What is the meaning of expression used in Article 20 (2) "for the same offence"? What is prohibited under Article 20 (2) is, the second prosecution and conviction must be for the same offence. If the offences are distinct, there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy being applicable.
It is thus clear that the same facts may give rise to different prosecutions and punishment and in such an event the protection afforded by Article 20 (2) is not available. It is settled law that a person can be prosecuted and punished more than once even on substantially same facts provided the ingredients of both the offences are totally different and they did not form the same offence.
In Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edition, Volume-IX, the law is succinctly summarised on this aspect of the matter as:
"If the defendant pleads autrefois convict or autrefois acquit, the prosecution replies or demurs. If the prosecution replies, which is the usual course, a jury is sworn to try the issue(x). The onus of proving the plea is on the defendant (a). He may prove it by producing a certified copy of the record or proceedings of the alleged previous conviction or acquittal (b), and showing by such copy or by other evidence, if necessary, that he has been convicted or acquitted of the same, or practically the same, offence as that on which he has been arraigned (c), or that he might on his former trial have been convicted of the offence on which he has been arraigned (d). The question for the jury on the issue is whether the defendant has previously been in jeopardy in respect of the charge on which he is arraigned (e), for the rule of law is that a person must not be put in peril twice for the same offence. The test is whether the former offence and the offence now charged have the same ingredients in the sense that the facts constituting the one are sufficient to justify a conviction of the other, not that the facts relied on by the Crown are the same in the two trials (f)."

CrPC-Sec 300 Amritlal Ratilal Mehta v. State of Gujarat, ((1980)1 SCC 121) an earlier finding which has attained finality is binding in the subsequent proceedings in the case. The question is not whether the ingredients of the two offences are the same or substantially the same. That question would be relevant if the plea was one autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. The question is not even of 'Issue estoppel' properly so called as there were no separate trials. The question really is about the binding force and the conclusive nature, at later stage of a case, of a finding of fact finally determined at an earlier stage of the case which would depend on the question as to what the allegations were, what facts were required to be proved and what findings were arrived at.