Autrefois acquit

Autrefois acquit is a Law French plea meaning formerly acquitted; its companion is autrefois convict. Both express the rule against double jeopardy, drawn from the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. In Indian criminal procedure the rule is enacted in Section 337 of the BNSS, earlier Section 300 of the CrPC: a person once tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted shall not, while the conviction or acquittal remains in force, be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge might have been made under Section 244(1) or for which he might have been convicted under Section 244(2).

The elements of the plea are a previous trial, by a Court of competent jurisdiction, ending in acquittal or conviction that remains in force, and a second trial for the same offence or on the same facts. The Explanation provides that dismissal of a complaint or discharge of the accused is not an acquittal. Under Section 337(5), a person discharged under Section 281 may be tried again only with the consent of the discharging Court or a Court to which it is subordinate.

Section 337 also permits later trials in defined cases: for a distinct offence that could have been separately charged, with the consent of the State Government (sub-section (2)); where the act later causes consequences that create a different offence, such as death following a conviction for grievous hurt (sub-section (3)); and where the first Court was not competent to try the later offence (sub-section (4)). Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 adds that where an act is an offence under two enactments, the offender may be prosecuted under either but shall not be punished twice for the same offence.

Article 20(2) of the Constitution gives constitutional protection only where a person has been both prosecuted and punished for the same offence, so in substance it raises autrefois convict, not autrefois acquit, to a fundamental right. Under Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) the earlier proceeding must have been before a court or judicial tribunal, so departmental or customs proceedings are no bar.