New Delhi, Oct 30 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has determined that a guilty plea cannot legitimize a prosecution that is legally prohibited. The ruling states that once an individual has been convicted of a crime, they cannot face trial or punishment again for the same act under a different case number.

In a decision to annul the second conviction of a life convict, a single-judge Bench presided by Justice Sanjeev Narula articulated: "A plea of guilt cannot confer jurisdiction. When the bar established by Section 300 CrPC or the double jeopardy rule outlined in Article 20(2) comes into play, the conviction is null, regardless of the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of evidence."

The court noted that the petitioner, Subhash Pahwa @ Subhash Chander, had previously been convicted in 2014 under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for possessing a stolen Ertiga car seized from Dwarka, and subsequently faced a second conviction in 2015 for the same recovery under a different FIR. Although the second conviction was based on a guilty plea, it was determined to be jurisdictionally void.

Justice Narula remarked, "The subsequent conviction... is based on the same Dwarka recovery from February 11, 2013 that was the foundation of his conviction on November 26, 2014." He added that the later prosecution was prohibited by Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC. "By applying the sameness and consequence tests, the subsequent prosecution and conviction were without jurisdiction. Hence, the later conviction is vitiated by Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC," the Delhi High Court concluded.

The court further clarified that the principle of double jeopardy safeguards against multiple prosecutions for the same offense or facts, stating: "The State cannot repeatedly prosecute or reinvestigate an individual for the same act merely by changing the statutory labels or filing a new FIR."

Justice Narula characterized the Magistrate’s act of documenting a guilty plea without resolving the accused’s objection under Section 300 CrPC as a serious irregularity.

He noted, "Recording a guilty plea without first addressing a jurisdictional objection is a significant irregularity... Since the prosecution was barred, the conviction was void ab initio." The Delhi High Court therefore annulled the 2015 conviction under Sections 411 and 482 of IPC, ordering all relevant authorities, including police and prison records, to implement necessary corrections within four weeks.

Justice Narula also instructed the Sentence Review Board (SRB) to reassess the petitioner’s case for early release, emphasizing that when multiple proceedings arise from the same factual scenario, authorities must avoid treating that single event as multiple adverse antecedents. The law penalizes distinct offenses, not overlapping narratives.

In conclusion, Justice Narula stated, "This jurisdiction corrects what the law prohibits; it does not retry what the law allows," reaffirming that constitutional protections against double jeopardy cannot be bypassed by procedural shortcuts or the accused’s admission of guilt.

“The SRB shall reevaluate the petitioner’s case for early release within eight weeks... In doing so, the SRB shall (i) consider overlapping elements from the single Dwarka recovery dated February 11, 2013 as one antecedent rather than multiple, and (ii) provide a reasoned decision,” directed the Delhi High Court.