MAQBOOL HUSSAIN versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 730 · Decided: 17-04-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1953 
April 17. 
J 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1953) . 
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN 
v. 
THE STA'l'E OF BOMBAY. 
JAGJIT SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB. 
VIDYA RATTAN 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB. 
PARMAN AND 
1!. 
THE SI'ATE OF PUNJAB. 
[PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MuKHERJEA, S.R. DAs, 
GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] 
· Constitution of India, 1B50, Art. 20(2)-Fundamental rights-
".htre fois acquit"-When subsequent prosecution barred-Confis-
cation of goods by Sea Customs Authorities·-Whether bars prosecution 
u11de1· Foreign Exchange Regulation Act-Punishment by Jail 
Superintendent under Jail Rules - Whether bars prosecntion under 
Penal Gode-Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), s.167-Foreign Ex-
cha1'ge Regulation Act (VII of 1947), s. 23-Punjab Communist 
Detenus Rules, Rule 41. 
The wording of Art. 20 of the Constitution and the words 
used therein show that the proceedings therein contemplated are 
proceedings of the nature of criminal proceedings before a court of 
law or a judicial tribunal and "prosecution" in this context would 
mean an initiation or starting of proceedings of a criminal nature 
before a court of law or a judicial tribunal in accordance with the 
procedure prescribed in the statute which creates the offence and 
regulates tbe procedure. 
Where a person against whom proceedings harl been taken by 
the Sea Customs Authorities under s. 167 of the Sea Customs Act 
and an order for confiscation of goods had been passed was sub-
sequently prosecuted before the Presidency Magistrate for an 
offence under s. 23 of the Foreign Exohange Regulation Act in 
respect of the same act: 
• 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS 
731 
Held, that the proceeding before the Sea Customs Authorities 
1958 
was not a nprosecution" and the order for confiscation was not a 
-
"punishment" inflicted by a Court or Judicial Tribunal within the Maqboo! H1main 
meaning of Art. 20(2) of the Constitution and the prosecution was 
v 
not barred. 
The Stat• of 
The detenus in a jail made a general assault on jail officials 
Bombay. 
and some of those who were removed to the cells resorted to 
hunger strike; and they were separately confined and letters and 
interviews were stopped with regard to them by the Jail Superin-
tendent. Some months after the hunger strike the J •il Superin-
tendent filed complaints against them before a Magistrate under 
r. 41 (2) of the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules for having com-
mitted a jail offence in resorting to hunger strike and for offences 
under ss. 332 and 353and147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code: 
Held, (i) that the detenus were governed by the Punjab 
Communist Detenus Rules and not the Prisons Act and the pro-
ceedings taken by the Jail Superintendent against the detenus did 
not constitute a prosecution and punishment within the meaning 
of Art. 20 (2) so as to prevent a subsequent prosecution for offences 
under the Indian Penal Code ; 
(ii) the Jail Superintendent having taken action under r. 41 
(1) for the hunger strike and punished the detenus with stoppage 
of letters etc. it was not open to him to make a cnmplaint against 
them again to the }fagistrate for the san1e offence of having 
com1nitted a jail offence by resorting to hunger strike. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTIO:'I: 
Criminal 
Ap.peal No. 81 of l!-!52. Appeal by special leave 
from the Judgment and Order dated 12th February, 
1951, of the High Court ol .J udicatare at Bombay in 
Criminal Application No. 644 of 1950. Petitions 
Nos. 170, 171and172, being petitions under Art. 32 
of the Constitution, were also heard along with 
Appeal No. 81 of 1952 .. 
Ishwarlal O. Dalal for the appellant. 
M. O. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Poru1 
A. Mehta, with him) for the Snate of Bombay. 
S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General of Punjab (Jindra Lal, 
with him) for the State of Punjab. 
Jagjit Singh, Petitioner in Petition No. 170 of 
1951, in person. 
Other petitiopers not represented. 
1953. April 17. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by Bhagwati J. 
95 
• 
732 
SUPREME COUR'l.
1 REPOR'l'8 
(195'3] 
1958 
BHAGWATI J.-This appeal by special leave from a 
,, b -;--H 
. judgmeut and order of the High Court of J udic~ture 
u<ag ooo 
µssarn 
B 
b 
. 
· 
· 
h 
v. 
at 
om ay raises an irnporta!lt quest10n as to t e 
Th• Stats of construction of article 20(:J) of the Constitution. 
Bombay. 
The. appellant, a citiJrnn of Bharat, arrived at the 
Bhagwau. J. 
• 
Santa Cruz airport from Jedd11h on the tith NoYem-
her, 1949. On landing he did not declare th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.