Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis pun...

Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.

Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:

a)
Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.
b)
Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.
c)
Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.
d)
The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomea...

Explanation:
The legal principle involved in the fact situation is the maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto, which means that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence. Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.

Analysis of Options:
Option A: Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.
This statement is partially correct, as it is based on the legal principle of nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto. However, it does not consider the fact that the thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment.

Option B: Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.
This statement is correct. The thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment, as only the State has the power to punish a person under the law. Therefore, Sajan can be punished by the State.

Option C: Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.
This statement is incorrect. Vigilante justice is not the right way to prevent future theft. The State has the power to punish a person under the law, and it should be left to the State to decide the appropriate punishment.

Option D: The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.
This statement is partially correct. The magistrate should take into consideration all relevant factors while fixing Sajan's punishment, including the fact that he was already thrashed by the people. However, the fact that he was thrashed by the people does not absolve him of legal punishment.

Conclusion:
The correct answer is option B. The legal principle of nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto applies in this case, but the thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment. Therefore, Sajan can be punished by the State.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: CLAT 2018 Past Year Paper
200 Ques | 120 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CLAT tests

Community Answer

Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomea...

Answer is B because getting thrashed is not a legal punishment

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Legal Principle: ‘ Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin phrase which means ‘hear the other side’. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing.Fact Situation: Sanjay, in Delhi, is accused of theft and brought before the Court. The magistrate discovers that Sanjay is mute.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above? Options

View answer

Read the information given below and answer the questions based on it.Section 124Aof theIndian Penal Codelays down the punishment forsedition. Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Offences like “sedition” have been subjected to sanction by the government before such charges can be framed. Courts have propounded various guidelines with respect to such sanction taking into account its importance. Section 196 of Cr.PC prohibits the magistrate to take cognizance for any offences under Chapter 6 of Indian Penal Code (“sedition” is one of the offences which falls under Chapter 6 of I.P.C) except with the prior sanction of the government. It substantiates the offences against the state which clearly provides for the purpose of sanction under section 196. The object of Section 196 under Cr.PC is to ensure prosecution only after due consideration by the appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecutions can be avoided.There have been many instances wherein Government has delayed the granting of sanction by not responding towards the request from the police officials. The difficulty arises when such delay hinders with the speedy trial system in the country. Such delays are often caused by the hidden political motives of the government. The courts have deliberated upon such issues and has provided for a time frame within which such sanction has to be taken from the government by the police (especially in offences such as “sedition”). Often the court is seen transgressing from its own propounded guidelines at various occasions. The furor created by controversy in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (hereinafter Kanhaiya Kumar’s cas e) is a classic example of such transgression. It was for more than 4 times that the Police officials failed to provide the requisite sanction to the court. The chief metropolitan court on the order dated 8th April 2019 provided the police officials with a time up till 23 June 2019 for taking the requisite sanction. The courts have already provided an extended amount of time limit to the police officials who have been unable to acquire the sanction within stipulated time period, these types of situation certainly create a conundrum which further affects the justice delivery system. It is a common phenomenon as to court transgressing from its own time limit, but it has to be adjudged with regards to the judiciary’s intention of providing a particular time limit and whether such time limit was subject to extension without any qualification. It is the duty of the court to identify as what shall be the consequences when it deviates from an established guideline in the interest of justice in controversial matters involving political motives behind such delays. Although the solutions can be unfruitful and infructuous in such controversial matters but it will still be dependent on court’s interpretation and Government’s discretion.Q.Suppose if a person commits an offence of “sedition” under Chapter 6 of I.P.C and police arrest him for commission of such an act without taking prior sanction from government and further present him before the court

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Karnataka Legislative Assembly passed the Karnataka Right to Freedom of Religion Bill, 2021, commonly referred to as the Anti-Conversion Bill, amid opposition protests. The bill states, "No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any other person from one religion to another by use of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or any fraudulent means, or by marriage, nor shall any person abet or conspire for conversions." It, however, provides an exemption in the case of a person who reconverts to his immediate previous religion as the same shall not be deemed to be a conversion under this act.According to the proposed legislation, complaints regarding conversions can be filed by family members or any other person who is related to the individual who is getting converted. A jail term along with fine have been proposed for those violating the law in the case of people from general categories, and an enhanced jail term and a fine has been mooted for those converting minors, women or persons from SC/ST communities.The bill also envisages payment of a compensation (on court orders) to victims of conversion by the persons attempting the conversion, and double punishment for repeat offences. Marriages conducted with the intention of conversion can be declared null and void by a family court or a jurisdictional court. The offence of conversion has been deemed to be a cognisable and non-bailable, that can be tried in a magistrates court under the proposed law.Any person intending to convert to another religion after the law comes into force will have to notify the district magistrate two months in advance. "The person who is carrying out the conversion must provide one month notice, and the district magistrate must conduct an enquiry through the police on the real purpose of the conversion", says the draft bill. Not informing the authorities will result in a prison term of six months to three years for persons who convert, and a term of one to five years for those carrying out conversions.The bill also requires the person who gets converted to inform the district magistrate of the conversion within 30 days, and he/she must appear before the district magistrate to confirm their identity. Not informing the district magistrate will lead to the conversion being declared null and void.[Extracted with edits and revisions from, Explained: What does Karnatakas contentious anti-conversion Bill propose?, The Indian Express]Q.A person got another person converted to his religion through fraud, and now the fraudulently converted person has written a letter to the district magistrate for compensation. Can the district magistrate award compensation?

View answer

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labeled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.Principle: Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.Facts: Jethalal was the owner of an electronic shop 'Gada Electronics'. One day he got stuck in his godown after the shop closed; with some people's help, he managed to break the lock and get out, but a police patrol team saw him with the broken lock and arrested him for the charge of breaking. Two days went by, and they kept him in custody for interrogation as the senior inspector wasn't around.Decide.

View answer

Which of the following statements does not hold true for the confessions made to the Magistrate under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above ? Options:a)Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.b)Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.c)Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.d)The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam