56.
The answer is: A
Explanation
The correct option is A: A can produce the judgment of his previous conviction and sentence handed down by the court in State B, which would be a relevant fact, and would prevent the court in State C from conducting a second trial on the same facts.
According to the principle given, if a person is tried by a competent court and either acquitted or convicted, he cannot be tried a second time for the same offence arising from the same facts while such conviction or acquittal remains in force. This is also known as the doctrine of double jeopardy, which is enshrined in Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The doctrine aims to protect a person from being harassed and oppressed by multiple prosecutions for the same offence.
The principle also states that the existence of any judgment, order, or decree which by law prevents any court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such court ought to take cognizance of such suit or hold such trial. This is based on Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that the existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such court ought to take cognizance of such suit or hold such trial.
In this case, A is accused of forging currency notes, and is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in State B of India and sentenced to the minimum prescribed punishment. Since part of the cause of action also arose in state C of India, a court of competent jurisdiction in State C seeks to try A on the same facts. However, A can produce the judgment of his previous conviction and sentence handed down by the court in State B, which would be a relevant fact, and would prevent the court in State C from conducting a second trial on the same facts. This is because A has already been tried and convicted for the same offence arising from the same facts by a competent court in State B, and his conviction and sentence remain in force. Therefore, he cannot be tried again for the same offence by another court under the doctrine of double jeopardy. The judgment of his previous conviction and sentence would also prevent the court in State C from taking cognizance of his case or holding a trial under Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Option B is incorrect because A can produce the judgment of his previous conviction and sentence handed down by the court in State B, as it is relevant and would prevent the court in State C from conducting a trial. As explained above, the judgment of his previous conviction and sentence is a relevant fact under Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, and would prevent the court in State C from taking cognizance of his case or holding a trial under the doctrine of double jeopardy.
Option C is incorrect because A can produce the judgment of his previous conviction and sentence handed down by the court in state B because the previous sentence was handed down by court in state B and was not in force in state C. The previous sentence was handed down by a competent court in state B and was in force throughout India. The doctrine of double jeopardy applies to all courts within India irrespective of their territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, A can produce the judgment of his previous conviction and sentence to prevent another trial on the same facts.
Option D is incorrect because A can produce the judgment of his previous conviction and sentence handed down by the court in state B without requiring any permission from the High Court of State C. The judgment of his previous conviction and sentence is a relevant fact under Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, and would prevent any other court from taking cognizance of his case or holding a trial under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, A does not need any permission from any higher authority to produce such judgment.
Option E is incorrect because A can produce the judgment of his previous conviction and sentence handed down by the court in state B without requiring any permission from the Supreme Court of India. As explained above, A does not need any permission from any higher authority to produce such judgment as it is a relevant fact under Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, and would prevent any other court from taking cognizance of his case or holding a trial under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The fact that part of the cause of action arose in different states does not affect his right to invoke double jeopardy as long as he has been tried and convicted for the same offence arising from the same facts by a competent court.