Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: This question consists of one or...

Join the Discussion on the App

Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.

Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.

Decide

a)
Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.
b)
Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.
c)
Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.
d)
Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.

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

FREE This question is part of

SLAT Mock Test - 5 (New Pattern)

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed...

A departmental inquiry does not mean prosecution. It is a disciplinary action initiated by the employer. Rule of double jeopardy is only applicable in the case of criminal prosecution.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following statements cannot be deduced from the passage above, according to the passage?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.According to the passage, which of the following is NOT a key difference between ED authorities and the police in their approach to investigations?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is in the eye of the storm again as Opposition parties allege that the federal agency is targeting them. Nine Indian states have, so far, withdrawn consent to the CBI for prosecution in their respective jurisdictions and, this month, signals emerged that Bihar, which recently saw a change in government, could soon be the 10th. Unlike the National Investigation Agency (NI

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is in the eye of the storm again as Opposition parties allege that the federal agency is targeting them. Nine Indian states have, so far, withdrawn consent to the CBI for prosecution in their respective jurisdictions and, this month, signals emerged that Bihar, which recently saw a change in government, could soon be the 10th. Unlike the National Investigation Agency (NI

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: This question consists of one or more principles followed by certain facts. You are to examine the principle(s) and apply it/them to the given facts carefully and select the best option accordingly.Principle: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This rule is known as double jeopardy.Facts: Nisha was a government employee. Embezzlement of funds was reported in her department. After the investigation, it came out that Nisha was responsible for this. So, she was handed over to the police for further criminal proceedings. She was convicted by the court and was given a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment. After this, a departmental inquiry was ordered to probe into the acts of Nisha by a government department. Nisha challenged this inquiry on the ground of above given principle.Decidea)Nisha will succeed since she has already been prosecuted and punished by the court once.b)Nisha will succeed since departmental inquiry is of no use after she has already been punished by the court.c)Nisha will not succeed since an inquiry at the departmental level is essential to find out the actual monetary loss that has been caused to the department.d)Nisha will not succeed since a departmental inquiry is not a criminal prosecution and is independent of criminal prosecution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam