The well known maxim `nemo delset bis vexari pro eadem causa' embodies the well established common law rule that no one should be put on peril twice for the same offence. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20 (2) has its roots in common law maxim nemo debet bis vexari. If a person is charged again for the same offence, he can plead, as a complete defence, his former conviction, or as it is technically expressed, take the plea of autrefois convict. The principle has been recognized in the existing law in India and is enacted in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Paras 13, 14 and 15] [539-F-H; 540-A-E] 1.2 What is prohibited under Article 20 (2) is, the second prosecution and conviction must be for the same offence. If the offences are distinct, there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy being applicable. The test to ascertain is whether two offences are the same, and not the identity of the allegations but the identity of the ingredients of the offences. Thus, it is clear that the same facts may give rise to different prosecutions and punishment and in such an event the protection afforded by Article 20 (2) is not available. A person can be prosecuted and punished more than once even on substantially same facts provided the ingredients of both the offences are totally different and they did not form the same offence. [Para 17] [541-D-E; 543-B-D] Maqbool Hussain vs. The State of Bombay (1953) SCR 730; S.A. Venkataraman vs. The Union of India & ANOTHER (1954) SCR 1150; Leo Roy Frey vs. Superintendent District Jail, Amritsar (1958) SCR 822; The State of Bombay vs. S.L. Apte (1961) 3 SCR 107; Bhagwan Swarup vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 682; State of Rajasthan vs. Hat Singh and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 152- referred to. United States vs. Rabinowith (1915) 238 US 78; T.W. Morgan vs. Alfonso J. Devine @ Ollie Devine (1915) 237 U.S.1153; United States vs. Vito Lanza (1922) 260 U.S. 314 - referred to. 1.3 The submission that the facts based on which `M' was prosecuted and punished by a competent court of jurisdiction at Lisbon and the facts based on which prosecution was initiated resulting in conviction are the same and, therefore, the conviction of `M' is in the teeth of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not well founded since the same set of facts can constitute offences under two different laws.