1996 (10) TMI 474 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Double Jeopardy under Section 403 CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India
2. Maintainability of Second Trial under Customs Act and Gold Control Act
3. Delay in Initiating Second Trial

Summary:

1. Double Jeopardy under Section 403 CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India:
The appellants contended that the second trial was barred u/s 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (corresponding to Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits double jeopardy. They argued that they had already been acquitted in the first trial for the same facts and thus could not be tried again. The court, however, held that the subsequent trial was for distinct offences under different enactments, and hence, the bar of double jeopardy did not apply. The court cited precedents, including State of Bombay vs. S.A. Apte and Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, to support this view.

2. Maintainability of Second Trial under Customs Act and Gold Control Act:
The appellants were initially acquitted of charges u/s 409 IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act due to lack of legal evidence of entrustment of gold bars. The second trial was initiated after obtaining necessary sanction u/s 137 of the Customs Act for offences under Section 120B IPC, Sections 135 and 136 of the Customs Act, Section 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act. The court found that the ingredients of the offences in the first and second trials were different, and thus, the second trial was maintainable. The court emphasized that the factual foundation for the second trial was distinct from the first.

3. Delay in Initiating Second Trial:
The appellants argued that the delay in initiating the second trial caused them undue prejudice and suffering. They highlighted that the incident occurred in 1969, and the second trial was initiated only in 1981. The court, however, rejected this argument, stating that the delay did not justify quashing the trial, especially given the serious nature of the economic offences involved. The court referred to V.K. Agarwal vs. Vasantaraj, where it was held that delay in prosecuting serious economic offences does not bar the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court, dismissing the appeal. The court concluded that the second trial was not barred by the principle of double jeopardy, was maintainable under the relevant laws, and that the delay in prosecution did not warrant quashing the trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.