1958 (11) TMI 7 - SC - Customs

Court - Revenue authorities (Customs authorities) are not courts of law - Departmental proceedings - Punishment - Double jeopardy

Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the proceedings before the Collector of Customs constitute a "prosecution" and "punishment" within the meaning of Article 20(2).
3. Identity of the offenses in both proceedings.
4. Examination under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Infringement of Article 20(2) of the Constitution:
The primary issue was whether the prosecution and punishment of the petitioners under the Sea Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act infringed the protection against double jeopardy enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which states, "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."

2. Whether the proceedings before the Collector of Customs constitute a "prosecution" and "punishment" within the meaning of Article 20(2):
The court examined whether the petitioners had been "prosecuted" and "punished" by the Collector of Customs. It was argued that the proceedings before the Collector of Customs were administrative and not judicial. The court referred to previous judgments, including Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, which held that the Sea Customs Authorities are not a judicial tribunal and the adjudging of confiscation or penalty does not constitute a judgment or order of a court or judicial tribunal necessary for the purpose of supporting a plea of double jeopardy.

The court reiterated that the Customs Officers, while adjudicating confiscation and penalties, do not function as a court of law. They are administrative authorities acting judicially but not as judicial tribunals. The court also referred to Section 187A of the Sea Customs Act, which states that no court shall take cognizance of any offense relating to smuggling of goods except upon a complaint in writing by the Chief Customs Officer, indicating that the Customs Officers are not courts.

3. Identity of the offenses in both proceedings:
The court examined whether the offenses for which the petitioners were prosecuted before the Collector of Customs and the criminal court were the same. The petitioners argued that they were prosecuted and punished for the same offense, thus violating Article 20(2). However, the court found that the proceedings before the Customs Authorities were in rem (against the goods) and not in personam (against the person). The penalties imposed by the Customs Authorities were for the purpose of preventing smuggling and recouping revenue losses, not as criminal punishment.

Justice Subba Rao, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the Customs Authorities, when adjudicating under Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act, function as judicial tribunals and that the penalties imposed by them are punishments within the meaning of Article 20(2). He contended that the petitioner was prosecuted and punished for the same offense by both the Customs Authorities and the criminal court, thus infringing Article 20(2).

4. Examination under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The second petitioner argued that the letter he wrote to his father was not properly put to him for explanation under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found that the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the letter, and the examination under Section 342 was conducted properly.

Conclusion:
The majority held that the proceedings before the Customs Authorities did not constitute "prosecution" and "punishment" within the meaning of Article 20(2), and thus, there was no infringement of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The petition and the appeal were dismissed. Justice Subba Rao dissented, arguing that the Customs Authorities acted as judicial tribunals and that the petitioners were prosecuted and punished for the same offense twice, thus infringing Article 20(2).

← Previous Next →