1953 (4) TMI 19 - SC - Customs

Whether by reason of the proceedings taken by the sea Customs Authorities the appellant could be said to have been prosecuted and punished for the same offence with which he was charged in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay? Held that - The prosecution of Jagjit Singh therefore before the Magistrate for the offences under sections 332 and 353 and sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code is not in violation of article 20 (2) or article 21 of the Constitution and must therefore proceed. The result therefore is that the Petition No. 170 of 1961 filed by Jagjit Singh will be allowed only to the extent that the appropriate writ of prohibition shall issue against the respondent in regard to his prosecution for having committed a jail offence in resorting to hunger strike, but his prosecution under sections 332 and 353 and sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code will not be affected by this order. The Petitions Nos. 171 of 1951 and 172 of 1951 filed by Vidya Rattan and Parma Nand respectively will be accepted and the appropriate writs of prohibition shall issue against the respondent as prayed for therein. Appeal No. 81 dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Construction of Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the appellant was prosecuted and punished for the same offence by the Sea Customs Authorities.
3. Whether the proceedings before the Sea Customs Authorities constituted a judicial tribunal.
4. Application of the principle of "autrefois convict" or "double jeopardy."
5. Validity of subsequent prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
6. Application of rules under the Preventive Detention Act and the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Construction of Article 20(2) of the Constitution:
The appeal raised an important question regarding the interpretation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which enunciates the principle of "autrefois convict" or "double jeopardy." This principle prevents a person from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The court examined whether the appellant's prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act violated this constitutional protection.

2. Whether the appellant was prosecuted and punished for the same offence by the Sea Customs Authorities:
The appellant was found with 107.2 tolas of gold at the Santa Cruz airport, which was confiscated by the Customs Authorities under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The appellant argued that this confiscation amounted to prosecution and punishment, thereby barring further prosecution under Article 20(2). The court analyzed whether the proceedings by the Customs Authorities amounted to prosecution and punishment within the meaning of Article 20(2).

3. Whether the proceedings before the Sea Customs Authorities constituted a judicial tribunal:
The court examined whether the Sea Customs Authorities acted as a judicial tribunal during the confiscation proceedings. It was determined that the Customs Authorities were not a judicial tribunal as they were not required to act judicially on legal evidence given on oath. The proceedings were more administrative in nature, focusing on the enforcement of customs duties rather than adjudicating criminal liability.

4. Application of the principle of "autrefois convict" or "double jeopardy":
The court discussed the principle of "autrefois convict" or "double jeopardy," which prevents a person from being tried or punished twice for the same offence. The court concluded that the confiscation of gold by the Customs Authorities did not constitute a prosecution and punishment by a judicial tribunal. Therefore, the appellant could not claim the protection of Article 20(2) against further prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

5. Validity of subsequent prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act:
Since the proceedings by the Customs Authorities did not amount to prosecution and punishment, the court held that the appellant could be prosecuted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act without violating Article 20(2). The appeal was dismissed, allowing the prosecution to proceed.

6. Application of rules under the Preventive Detention Act and the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules:
In related petitions, detenus under the Preventive Detention Act were punished by the Jail Superintendent for jail offences, including hunger strikes. The court examined whether these punishments constituted prosecution and punishment under Article 20(2). It was determined that the Jail Superintendent's actions were administrative, not judicial, and did not preclude subsequent prosecution by a Magistrate for the same offences. The court quashed the prosecutions for jail offences but allowed prosecutions under the Indian Penal Code to proceed.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Customs Authorities' actions did not constitute prosecution and punishment by a judicial tribunal, and thus, the appellant's subsequent prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act did not violate Article 20(2). The appeal was dismissed, and related petitions were partially allowed, quashing prosecutions for jail offences but permitting prosecutions under the Indian Penal Code.

← Previous Next →