1957 (10) TMI 1 - SC - Customs

Whether the petitioners had previously been prosecuted and punished for the same offence for which they are now being prosecuted before the Additional District Magistrate? Held that - The proceedings before the Customs authorities were under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. Under Section 186 of that Act, the award of any confiscation, penalty or increased rate of duty under that Act by an officer of Customs does not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under any other law. The offences with which the petitioners are now charged include an offence under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code. Criminal conspiracy is an offence created and made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. It is not an offence under the Sea Customs Act. The offence of a conspiracy to commit a crime is a different offence from the crime that is the object of the conspiracy because the conspiracy precedes the commission of the crime and is complete before the crime is attempted or completed, equally the crime attempted or completed does not require the element of conspiracy as one of its ingredients. They are, therefore, quite separate offences. It is true that the Collector of Customs had used the words punishment and conspiracy but those words were used in order to bring out that each of the two petitioners was guilty of the offence under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The petitioners were not and could never be charged with criminal conspiracy before the Collector of Customs and therefore Article 20(2) cannot be invoked. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and habeas corpus.
2. Confiscation of currency and motor car by Collector of Central Excise.
3. Complaint lodged under Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and Sea Customs Act.
4. Pending trial under Indian Arms Act and bail conditions.
5. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners filed separate petitions seeking writs of certiorari, prohibition, and habeas corpus. They challenged the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Collector of Land Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar, regarding the confiscation of currency and a motor car. The petitioners argued that they were deprived of their liberty without due process of law.

2. The Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs ordered the confiscation of currency and a motor car, along with imposing penalties on the petitioners under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The Collector found both petitioners guilty of offenses related to the importation and attempted exportation of goods. The petitioners contested these actions, leading to the filing of complaints under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and Sea Customs Act.

3. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector lodged complaints against the petitioners under various sections of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, Sea Customs Act, and Indian Penal Code. One petitioner faced charges under the Indian Arms Act for possession of a pistol and cartridges. The petitioners were granted bail, which was later reduced by the High Court. Due to their inability to provide the required security, they remained in judicial custody.

4. The petitioners contended a violation of their fundamental right under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, arguing against being prosecuted and punished multiple times for the same offense. They relied on legal precedents to support their claim that the pending proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate infringed upon their constitutional protection. The court analyzed the nature of the offenses and concluded that the petitioners were facing distinct charges not covered by previous proceedings, thus Article 20(2) did not apply to their case.

5. The court dismissed the applications, emphasizing that the petitioners were not being prosecuted for the same offense in the current proceedings. The judgment clarified the distinction between the offenses under consideration and the legal principles governing protection against double jeopardy. The court's decision was based on the specific legal interpretations of the charges and the application of Article 20(2) in the context of the petitioners' case.