Provision as to offences punishable under two or more enactments
Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 deals with provision as to offences punishable under two or more enactments. Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. The Act came into force on 11 Mar 1897.
Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.
Section 26, The General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act 10 of 1897).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 7
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 337
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 337 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 300 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 300 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 300 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence
- Crpc 1973 s. 300 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence
- Punjab Excise Act, 1914(Bare Act ) s. 174
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Inst. of Chartered Accountants of India vs Vimal Kumar Surana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an act or omission constitutes a violation of a special statutory regulation (such as Sections 24, 24A, 25, 26 of the Chartered Accountants Act) and simultaneously constitutes one or more distinct offences under the Indian Penal Code (such as impersonation under Section 419, forgery under Sections 465, 468, or seal counterfeiting under Sections 472, 473), a person may be prosecuted and punished for offences under the IPC notwithstanding the existence of the special statute and its prescribed regulatory penalties, provided the offences are distinct in their legal ingredients. The requirement under Section 28 of the Chartered Accountants Act for Council sanction applies only to prosecution 'under the Act' itself and does not extend to prosecution for IPC offences that happen to arise from conduct violating the Act. The expression 'without prejudice to any other proceedings' in Sections 24A and 26 demonstrates parliamentary intent to permit parallel criminal proceedings. Interpretation of special legislation that would preclude IPC prosecution must be avoided where such interpretation creates discrimination in treatment of serious criminal conduct or renders the special statute vulnerable to constitutional challenge under Article 14.
On this section: Applied regarding protection against double punishment but not double prosecution when offences are distinct
-
The State of Tripura Home Department Chief Secretary vs Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecution, if otherwise maintainable, would lie both under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since both the statutes operate with full vigour in their own independent spheres. The offences provided under both the statutes are separate and distinct from each other, and an offender can be tried and punished independently under both statutes. The principle that the special law should prevail over the general law has no application in cases of prosecution of offenders in road accidents under the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act, as the offences do not overlap. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permits prosecution under either or both enactments but prevents double punishment for the same offence.
On this section: Provision as to offences punishable under two or more enactments; permits prosecution under either or both enactments but prevents double punishment for same offence
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence under both the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the FSSA have overriding effect over the IPC provisions by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution should proceed only under the FSSA, specifically Section 59, and not under the IPC provisions. The FSSA being comprehensive legislation with exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions for dealing with food safety offences, including more stringent punishments and specialized procedures, is the appropriate and exclusive remedy for food adulteration and unsafe food violations.
On this section: Cited by State counsel to argue that while offender may be prosecuted under two enactments, cannot be punished twice for same offence
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the same act constitutes an offence both under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the Indian Penal Code, specifically where minerals are dishonestly removed from government land without consent (theft under IPC), the two offences are distinct in their ingredients and ingredients are different. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to complaints by authorized officers, does not bar prosecution under the IPC for the distinct offence of theft. The police can register FIR for theft, investigate, and submit report to Magistrate for cognizance under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC, while simultaneously the authorized officer can file complaint for MMDR Act violation requiring different procedure for Magistrate cognizance. Both prosecutions can proceed as the offences are distinct and the bar against double jeopardy applies only to identical offences.
On this section: Double punishment bar for same offence; key to determining whether IPC and MMDR Act charges can coexist
-
Kalubhai Dulabhai Khachar vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where conduct constitutes an offence under both the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the MMDR Act do not impliedly or explicitly exclude prosecution under the IPC. Police can register FIR, investigate and submit charge sheets for theft of minerals under IPC Sections 378-379 based on discovery of unauthorized removal of minerals from government land. Magistrates can take cognizance of theft offences on police reports under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC without awaiting complaint from authorized MMDR officer. However, for offences constituting breach of mining lease or unauthorized mining specifically under MMDR Act Section 21, cognizance by Magistrate can only be taken upon complaint in writing by person authorized by Central or State Government as required by MMDR Act Section 22. These are distinct offences with different ingredients and prosecution for both does not violate Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy provided person is not punished twice for identical offence. The Public Trust Doctrine establishes that natural resources are national assets requiring protection through multiple enforcement mechanisms. Police duty under Sections 149-152 CrPC to prevent cognizable offences includes authority and responsibility to investigate illegal mining even without prior authorization from mining authorities.
On this section: Provision on double punishment for same offence; discussed in context of distinct offences under different enactments
-
Avinash Chandra Vaish vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a special statute like the Legal Metrology Act 2009 contains a non obstante clause and exclusionary provision (Section 51), it excludes only those provisions of the general statute (IPC) which specifically relate to the subject matter covered by the special statute. Offences under the general statute which are not covered by the special statute remain prosecutable even when the facts also constitute an offence under the special statute. The exclusion applies only to Chapter XIII IPC (Sections 264-267) relating to weights and measures, not to offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy or common intention which are not covered by the Legal Metrology Act 2009. An accused can be prosecuted under either or both statutes but cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
On this section: Provisions regarding offences punishable under two or more enactments; cited to establish that offender may be prosecuted under either or both but not punished twice
-
The State of Uttar Pradesh Secretary Ministry of Home Govt. of U. P vs Aman Mittal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a special statute provides for specific offences relating to a particular subject matter and contains an overriding clause, the special statute excludes the application of corresponding provisions of a general statute only insofar as they relate to the specific subject matter covered by the special statute. Offences under the general statute that are not covered by the special statute remain prosecutable even if the facts also constitute an offence under the special statute, provided the offender is not punished twice for the same offence. In the context of the Legal Metrology Act 2009, Section 51 excludes only Chapter XIII IPC offences relating to weights and measures, not all IPC offences. Offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and common intention remain prosecutable under IPC as they are not covered by the Legal Metrology Act.
On this section: Provides that where act constitutes offence under two enactments, offender may be prosecuted under either or both but not punished twice for same offence.
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence of food adulteration or dealing with unsafe food, the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, specifically Section 59, will have overriding effect over Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution for such offences must proceed under the FSSA framework rather than under the IPC, and simultaneous prosecution under both statutes is not permissible. The FSSA provides a comprehensive and exhaustive legislative framework for food safety with more stringent penalties and procedural safeguards than the IPC, and was enacted specifically to consolidate and replace the multiplicity of food-related laws that existed prior to its enactment.
On this section: Cited by State to argue that while prosecution under two enactments is permissible, punishment can only be under one; Court rejected this as inapplicable where FSSA overrides IPC
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act of food adulteration or dealing with unsafe food constitutes an offence under both Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the provisions of the FSSA shall have overriding effect by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution must proceed exclusively under the FSSA regime, and there cannot be simultaneous prosecution under both the IPC and FSSA. The FSSA being comprehensive, exhaustive legislation consolidating all food-related laws with more stringent punishments and procedural safeguards, the IPC provisions are excluded from application in food safety matters covered by the FSSA.
On this section: Establishes principle that offender may be prosecuted under either or both enactments but not punished twice for same offence
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence of food adulteration under both Sections 272-273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the provisions of the FSSA shall have overriding effect by virtue of Section 89 of FSSA. Consequently, there shall be no simultaneous prosecution under both statutes; the prosecution must proceed exclusively under the FSSA framework which provides more comprehensive and stringent provisions for dealing with unsafe food offences. The IPC provisions for food adulteration are superseded by the FSSA for all food safety matters covered by the FSSA.
On this section: Cited by State to argue that while prosecution under two enactments is permissible, double punishment is barred
-
The State of Maharashtra Controller, Food and Drugs Administration Principal Secretary vs Sk. Sujauddin Sk. Khaliluddin
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, the offender may be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. The existence of specific penalty provisions in a special enactment does not bar concurrent prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. Section 188 of the IPC applies to disobedience of orders issued by public servants (including Food Safety Officers) where such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, and is not limited to breaches of law and order.
On this section: Provides that where an act constitutes offence under two or more enactments, offender may be prosecuted under either or any of those enactments but shall not be punished twice for the same offence
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 26
What have the courts held on Section 26 of the General Clauses Act?
Inst. of Chartered Accountants of India vs Vimal Kumar Surana (01 Dec 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Applied regarding protection against double punishment but not double prosecution when offences are distinct. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: General Clauses Act 26, section 26 General Clauses Act, section 26 of the General Clauses Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Inst. of Chartered Accountants of India vs Vimal Kumar Surana (01 Dec 2010).
What should I read with Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, and has it changed?
7 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 26 of the General Clauses Act come into force?
Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, cited as General Clauses Act 26, came into force on 11 Mar 1897, having been enacted on 11 Mar 1897. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 3. Definitions2735 words
- 23. Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after previous publication243 words
- 24. Continuation of orders, etc., issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted178 words
- 6. Effect of repeal168 words
- 4. Application of foregoing definitions to previous enactments143 words
- 28. Citation of enactments143 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.