Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1957 (10) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s through the American Express Company from Geneva to Bombay by ss. ASIA. The car was also shipped by the same vessel. The two petitioners disembarked at Karachi on June 11, 1957, and after a brief halt at Karachi, they left together by plane for Bombay and reached Bombay on the same day. The petitioners stayed together at the Ambassador Hotel at Bombay from June 11, 1957, to the afternoon of June 19, 1957. On the last mentioned date both of them left Bombay by plane and reached Delhi the same evening. They occupied room No. 1 at Janpath Hotel and stayed there from June 19 to June 29, 1957. After the car, which had been booked by rail from Bombay to Delhi, had arrived in Delhi, the two petitioners left Delhi and travelled together in the ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er Dana under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act to show cause before the Collector why under that section penalty should not be imposed on him and why the seized articles should not be confiscated. A similar notice was served on the petitioner Frey, on July 9, 1957. The petitioners made representations in writing and were also heard in person. On July 24, 1957, the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs made an order for the confiscation of the currency and also of the motor car with an option to the petitioner Dana to redeem the car on payment of Rs. 50,000 and also ordered confiscation of articles other than the currency recovered from the car subject to redemption on payment of Rs. 100. The Collector was also satisfied that eac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hed. The trial of the Arms Act case has concluded in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate but orders are pending. The petitioners, Frey and Dana were directed to be released on bail in the sum of rupees five lakhs and ten lakhs respectively, which were finally reduced by the High Court to rupees two lakhs and five lakhs respectively. Neither of the petitioners could furnish the requisite security and they have, therefore, been in judicial custody. They have now come forward with these applications for the reliefs already mentioned. Their main contention, urged before us, is that they have been deprived of their liberty otherwise than in accordance with procedure established by law. 4. In ordinary circumstances the production of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 167(8) and we are not called upon to express any opinion on that point. But the fact that the Collector of Customs acted judicially is not decisive and does not necessarily attract the protection guaranteed by Article 20(2) and the question still remains whether the petitioners' case comes within the provisions of Article 20(2). That article protects a person from being "prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once". The question has to be answered as to 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. The proceedings before the Customs authorities were under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. Under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates