JITENDRA PANCHAL versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NCB & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 03-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 1 S.C.R. 842 
A 
JITENDRA PANCHAL 
+· 
v. 
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NCB & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1660 of 2007) 
B 
FEBRUARY 3, 2009 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
)>. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 20(2) - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - s.300(1) - Contraband item, allegedly 
c smuggled out of India by appellant and others, seized in USA 
- Appellant arrested in Vienna and extradited to USA -
Convicted under Title 21, United States Code (USC) 
Controlled Substances Act with sentence for 54 months - After 
serving the sentence, appellant deported to India whereupon 
D he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody -
Complaint against appellant by Narcotics Control Bureau -
Plea of appellant that proceedings against him in India would 
amount to double jeopardy - Held: Not tenable - Offences 
for which appellant was tried and convicted in USA and for 
E which he was being tried in India, were distinct and separate 
and did not, therefore, attract either the provisions of s.300(1) 
CrPC or Art.20(2) of Constitution -Appe{lant was tried in USA 
in respect of a charge of conspiracy to possess a controlled 
substance with intention of distributing the same, whereas in 
,I. .
F India he was being tried for offences relating to importation 
of contraband article from Nepal into India and exporting the 
same for sale in USA - While the first part of charges attracted 
,.. 
s.846 read with s.841 of Title 21 USC Controlled Substances 
Act, the latter part, being offences under the NDPS Act was 
G triable and punishable in India -
Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - ss.29, 20, 23, 27A, 24 
rlw s.8(c), 12- Penal Code, 1860- ss.3 and 4 - Criminal Law 
- Double jeopardy. 
A consignment of Hashish seized in USA, was 
H 
842 
JITENDRA PANCHAL v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NCB 843 
&ANR. 
allegedly smuggled out of India by appellant and two 
A 
others. The appellant was arrested in Vienna, Austria and 
extradited to the USA and thereafter tried before the 
District Court at Michigan, USA. On pleading guilty of the 
charge of conspiracy to possess with intention to 
distribute controlled substances, which is an offence 
B 
under Section 846 of Title 21, United States Code (USC) 
Controlled Substances Act, the appellant was sentenced 
to imprisonment for a total term of 54 months. After 
serving out the aforesaid sentence, the appellant was 
deported to India and on his arrival at New Delhi, he was c 
arrested by officers of the NCB and remanded to judicial 
custody. The Special Judge, Mumbai rejected the 
contention of appellant that proceedings against him in 
India would amount to double jeopardy. The NCB filed a 
complaint against the appellant in the Court of Special 
0 
Judge, Mumbai. 
Appellant filed Criminal Writ Petition praying for 
quashing of the said complaint. The High Court 
dismissed the writ petition holding that the ingredients of 
the offences with which the appellant had been charged 
E 
in India were totally different from the offences with which 
he had been charged and punished in the USA. The High 
Court held that merely because the same set of facts 
gives rise to different offences in India under the NDPS 
Act and in the USA under its drug laws, the Special Judge, 
F 
Mumbai was not debarred from dealing with matters 
which attracted the provisions of the local laws and the 
application of principle of double jeopardy was not 
available in the facts of the present case. Hence the 
present appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The offence for which the appellant was 
convicted in the USA is quite distinct and separate from 
the offence for which he is being tried in India. The 
H 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A offence for which the appellant was tried in the USA was 
in respect of a charge of conspiracy to possess a 
controlled substance with the intention of distributing the 
same, whereas the appellant is being tried in India for 
offences relating to the importation of the contraband 
B article from Nepal into India and exporting the same for 
sale in the USA. While the first part of the charges would 
attract the provisions of Section 846 read with Section 
841 of Title 21 USC Controlled Substances Act, the latter 
part, being offences under the NDPS Act, 1985, would be 
C triable and punishable in India, having particular regard 
to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of IPC read with 
Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, whi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.