Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXIV: General Provisions As to Inquiries and Trials
Section 300: Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
In plain words
A person once tried by a competent court and convicted or acquitted of an offence cannot be tried again for the same offence, or on the same facts for another offence that could have been charged or convicted under section 221, while that verdict stands.
- With State Government consent, they can later be tried for a distinct offence that could have been separately charged under sub-section (1) of section 220.
- They can be tried again if consequences of the act later occur or become known and create a different offence.
- They can be tried for another offence from the same acts if the first court was not competent to try it.
- Dismissal of a complaint or discharge is not an acquittal for this purpose.
Example: A is convicted of causing grievous hurt. The injured person later dies. A may be tried again for culpable homicide.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of section 220.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code.
Explanation.—The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section. 1. Ins. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 23 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).
Illustrations
(a) A is tried upon a charge of theft as a servant and aquitted. He cannot afterwards, while the acquittal remains in force, be charged with theft as a servant, or, upon the same facts, with theft simply, or with criminal breach of trust.
(b) A is tried for causing grievous hurt and convicted. The person injured afterwards dies. A may be tried again for culpable homicide.
(c) A is charged before the Court of Session and convicted of the culpable homicide of B. A may not afterwards be tried on the same facts for the murder of B.
(d) A is charged by a Magistrate of the first class with, and convicted by him of, voluntarily causing hurt to B. A may not afterwards be tried for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to B on the same facts, unless the case comes within sub-section (3) of this section.
(e) A is charged by a Magistrate of the second class with, and convicted by him of, theft of property from the person of B. A may subsequently be charged with, and tried for, robbery on the same facts.
(f) A, B and C are charged by a Magistrate of the first class with, and convicted by him of, robbing D. A, B and C may afterwards be charged with, and tried for, dacoity on the same facts.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 300
-
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
Issue arose whether the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences u/ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B IPC and s.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the courts below was legally sustainable.
-
Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
(i) Whether the High Court in exercise of its power u/s.482 of CrPC or under Art.226/227 of the Constitution is justified in refusing to quash the FIR No.380/2005, u/ss.420, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and the order dated…
-
Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it set aside the order of the trial court summoning respondents as additional accused for facing trial along with the principal accused.
-
Yadwinder Singh v. Lakhi Alias Lakhwinder Singh & Anr. Etc.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court issuing summons u/s.319, CrPC against the private respondents.
-
State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of judgment and order of the Special Court acquitting the respondents for offences under Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
-
P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending…
-
Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report in the first complaint, upon considering the written objections/protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh/second complaint on the same set of facts is…
-
M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The present appeals challenge the Order on Charge dated 24.12.2021 and Order framing Charges dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Central Bureau of Investigation registered…
-
Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power of attorney-PoA,…
-
Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Chhattisgarh
Conduct of the trial for offence under Section 409, Penal Code, 1860; exercise of powers under Cr.PC, for committal of cases to the Court of competent jurisdiction.
- Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar
- The State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta
- Chandi Puliya v. The State of West Bengal
- T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala
- J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan & Ors.
- Ms. P Xxx v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr
- J. Sekar @Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
- Department of Customs v. Sharad Gandhi
- State of Mizoram v. Dr. C. Sangnghina
- State of Jharkhand Through Sp, CBI v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Y Aday
- Vipulbhai Mansingbhai Chaudhary v. State of Gujarat & Another
- Videocon Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Air Customs Officer Igi New Delhi v. Pramod Kumar Dhamija
- Ravinder Kaur v. Anil Kumar
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy & Ors. v. Raju Thr. Member Juvenile Justice Board & Anr.
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das Agrawal & Others
- Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr.
- Radheyshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and Anr.
- Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantala Venkateswara Rao and Anr.
- R.S. Mishra v. State of Orissa & Ors.
- The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Vimal Kumar Surana and Another
- Monica Bedi v. State of Ap.
- Pal @ Palla v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra
- Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad
- Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) & Anr.
- Jitendra Panchal v. Intelligence Officer, Ncb & Anr.
- Balbir Singh v. State of Delhi
- State of Karnataka Through CBI v. C. Nagarajaswamy
- State of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh and Ors.
- K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police and Anr.
- Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur
- State Through Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Sit Etc. v. Nalini and Ors. Etc. Etc.
- M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka
- State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, Farukh Salauddin & Vikram Singh