Back
GHULAM HASAN, B. K. MUKHERJEE, M. PATANJALI SASTRI, S. R. DASS, N. H. BHAGWATI
Maqbool Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bombay – Respondent
Key Points: - The Sea Customs Authorities are not a judicial tribunal, and their proceedings for confiscation/penalty do not constitute a "prosecution and punishment" under Art. 20(2) [reference: p_16, p_17, p_18]. - Art. 20(2) permits a bar against being prosecuted and punished for the same offence if there has been both prosecution and punishment before a court; mere administrative actions or penalties by officers (e.g., Customs) do not satisfy "prosecution and punishment" [reference: p_12, p_16, p_18]. - The judgment distinguishes between administrative jail discipline (Punjab Detenus Rules) and judicial proceedings; only the latter can trigger Art. 20(2) protections; where jail discipline is not a prosecution under a statute, Art. 20(2) does not apply [reference: p_23, p_24, p_25]. - The petitioner’s claim of double jeopardy failed because confiscation by Sea Customs did not amount to "punishment" by a court for the same offence [reference: p_18, p_19]. - The decision outlines the four requisites of a judicial decision and applies them to determine whether Sea Customs proceedings qualified as a judicial tribunal [reference: p_13, p_14, p_23]. - The case quotes and interprets earlier principles on double jeopardy and relevant statutory provisions (General Clauses Act, CrPC, etc.) to support the conclusion that no double jeopardy arose in this context [reference: p_4, p_9, p_15].
Judgement
Bhagwati, J. - This appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay raises an important question as to the construction of Art 20 (2) of the Constitution .
2. The appellant a citizen of Bharat arrived at the Santa Cruz airport from Jeddah on 6-11-l949. On landing he did not declare not that he had brought in gold with him but on search it was found that he had brought 107.2 tolas of gold in contravention of the notification of the Government of India dated 25-8-1948. The Customs authorities thereupon took action under S.167 CL (8). Sea Customs Act 8 of 1878 and confiscated the gold by an order dated 19-12-1949. The owner of the gold was, however, given the option to pay in lieu of such confiscation a fine of Rs. 12,000 which option was to be exercised within four months of the date of the order. A copy of the order was sent on 30-1-1950 to the appellant. Nobody came forward to redeem the gold. On 22-3-1950 a complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay against the appellant charging him with having committed an offence under S.8 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 7 of 1947 read with the notification dat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
