G RAMANUJAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A charge-sheet was filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Nellore Division, against the accused for offences under section 135 (a) and (4) (ii) of the Customs Act, alleging that on 27th August, 1968 at about 9-30 A.M., at Eruvaram Sales Tax Check post on Chittoor-Bangalore road the accused who was travelling in a bus from Bangalore to Chittoor, was found in possession of 2 paper packets each containing 5 pieces of gold biscuits weighing 10 tolas each with foreign marking engraved thereon and as the accused could not explain his possession of these biscuits, they were seized and hence the accused had committed the offences stated above.

(2.) After the trial Court took cognizance of the complaint, the accused filed a revision petition before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, taking a preliminary objection that the prosecution launched against him infringed the protection against double jeopardy enshrined in clause 2 of Article 20 of the Constitution of India as he had already suffered the penalty imposed by the customs authority. Admittedly the Collector, Central Excise who conducted the enquiry directed confiscation of the gold seized under section in (d) of the Customs Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 112 (b) of the Customs Act. It was contended that the further prosecution cannot be launched against the accused for the same offence This plea was rejected by the trial Court and also in Revision by the Sessions Judge.

(3.) The same plea is taken again here. In Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab, it was pointed out that there is a distinction between a proceeding before the Customs Authorities while enforcing prohibition proceedings and a Criminal Prosecution before a Magistrate with a view to punishing offenders under the provisions of the same section, and that the proceeding before the Excise Authority is not prosecution and they do not constitute a Court that thus one of the 3 essential conditions laid down in clause 2 of article 20 of the Constitution is absent and therefore, the prohibition against double jeopardy would not become operative. In this view the two Courts below were right in rejecting this plea of the accused. This revision petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed, Revision dismissed.