LexLEO ROY FREY versus THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, AMRITSAR AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19581 1957 entitled to copies of the material before the respondent lnayat Ullah previous to the issuing of the notice under s. 7 of the __ c'· d' Act. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed 'ne usto oan, 'th ts EMl:ttee Property Wl COS . Imam J. 1957 October, 31 Appeal dismissed. LEO ROY FREY v. THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, AMRITSAR, AND ANOTHER (and connected petition) (S. R. DAS. C. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BosE JJ.) Sea Customs_;_Award of confiscation and penaity-Ij a bar to prosecution for criminal conspiracy-Sea Customs Act, 1878 (VIII of 1878), ss. 167 (8), 186-Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), s. 120B-Constitution of India, Art. 2() (2). • The petitioners were found guilty under s. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act and the currency and other goods recover- ed from their possession were confiscated and heavy per- sonal penalties imposed on them by the Collector of Cen- tral Excise and Land Customs. Complaints were thereafter lodged against them by the Customs authorities before the Additional District Magistrate under s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with s. 23/23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947, and s. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, as also under other sections of the two latter Acts. The Magistrate granted bail but they could not furnish the requisite security and were, therefore, kept in judicial custody. By two petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution they prayed for the issue of writs of certiorari and/or pro- hibition for quashing the proceedings pending against them in the Court of the Magistrate as also for the issue of writs of habeas corpus. It was contended on their behalf that in view of the provision of Art. 20 (2) of the ~nstitution they could not be prosecuted and punished twice over for the same offence and the proceedings pending. before the Addi- tional Magistrate violated the protection afforded by Art. 20 (2) of the Constitution. He!d, that the contention was without substance and the petitions must be dismissed. The fact that in imposing confiscation and penalties under s. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, the Collector of S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 823 Customs acts judicially is not decisive and. d~s not attr~ct 1957 the protection of Art. 20 (2) of the Constitution. Section Leo Roy Frey 186 of the Act does not prevent the infliction of any other v. punishment to which the- person concerned may be liable The ~11p~rintellfle11t, under any other law D1str1c! Jail, • Amritsar F. N. Roy v. Collector of Customs, Petition No. 438 of 1955, decided on May 16, 1957, referred to. Criminal conspiracy is an offence under s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code but not so under the Sea Customs Act, and ·the petitioners were not and could not be charged with jt before the Collector of Customs. It is an offence sepa- rate from the crime which it may have for its object and is complete even before the crime is attempted or completed, and even when attempted or completed, it forms no ingre- dient of such crime. United Swtes v. Rabinowith, (1915) 238 U.S. 78, referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 126 and 127 of 1957. (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement· of Fundamental Rights.) N. C. Chatterjee and Nanak Chand for the peti- tioners. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents. 1957. October 31. The following Order of the Court was delivered by DAS C. J.-In their respective separate petitions, t~ petitioners pray ( 1) for an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or prohibition calling for the records in the case of the Assistant Collector of Land Customs & Central Excise; Amritsar, against the two petitioners and one Moshe Baruk, on the file of the Additional District Magistrate of Amritsar and for quashing the proceedings therein, habeas corpus for the production before this Court of the persons of the petitioners to be dealt with accord- ing to law. The facts appearing from the records are shortly as follows: The petitioner, Leo Roy Frey, purchased a car No. C.D. 75TT6587 from an officer of the American Embassay in Paris. This car was sold by the petitioner Frey to the petitioner Thomas Dana, in May 1957. On transfer, the car was registered in the name of the petitioner Dana on May 18, 1957. Both the petitioners
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.