LexTHOMAS DANA versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. r958 Industrial Tribunal before discharging, punishing or - effecting a change in the conditions of service of the s. K. G. Suga• Ltd. workmen concerned no application under s. 33-A of Sri A/iv.Hassan, the Act could be maintained against it even on the as. Chairman, Indus- sumption that the allegations made in the said appli- trial Tribunal, cations were correct. Bihar &- Othm The result, therefore, is that the proceedings in Mis- cellaneous Cases Nos. 26 and 27 of 1955 before the res- Bhagwati ]. N d b p pondent o. 1, In ustrial Tri unal, Bihar, atna are NovembeY 4. without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The appeal of the appellant will therefore be allowed, the order made by the High Court on September 20, 1956, will be set aside and a writ of certiorari will issue against respondent No. l quashing the proceedings in the said Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 26 and 27 of 1955. The appellant will be entitled to its costs throughout against the contesting respondents. Appeal allowed. THOMAS DANA v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (and connected appeal) (S. R. DAS, c. J., N. H. BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, K. SuBBA RAO and K. N. WANCHoo, JJ.) Sea Customs-Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty by Collector of <;ustoms-Subsequent conviction and sentence by Magistrate, if violative of fundamental right to protection against double jeopardy-Constitution of India, Art. 20(2)-Sea Customs Act, I878 (8 of I878), ss. I67(8) and I67(8I). The two petitioners were apprehended while attempting to smuggle a huge amount of Indian and foreign currency and other contraband goods out of India and the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs passed orders confiscating the seized goods and imposing heavy personal penalties on both of them under (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 275 s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. On a subsequent complaint made by the Customs Authorities on the same facts, the petiti- oners were convicted and sentenced by the Additional District Magistrate to various terms of imprisonment under s. 23, read withs. 23B, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge in appeal affirmed the said orders of conviction and sentences and the High Court refused to inter- fere in revision. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners, who had, at an earlier stage, made an unsuccessful attempt to move this Court under Art. 32 and have the prosecutions quash- ed, that the orders of conviction and sentences passed on them by the Courts below infringed the constitutional protection against double jeopardy afforded by Art. 20(2) of the Constitu- tion. Held, (Per Das, C. J., Bhagwati, B. P. Sinha and Wanchoo, JJ., Subba Rao, J., dissenting) that the contention was without substance and must be negatived. In order to sustain a plea of double jeopardy and to avail of the protection of Art. 20(2) of the Constitution it was incumbent to show that (1) there was a previous prosecution, (2) a punish- ment and (3) that for the same offence, and unless all the three conditions were fulfilled the Article did not come into operation. The word 'prosecution' as used in that Article contemplated a proceeding of a criminal nature either before a court or a judicial tribunal. Maqbool Hussain v. The State of Bombay, [1953] S.C.R. 730, relied on. The insertion of s. l87A into the Sea Customs Act by the amending Act of 1955, left no scope for doubt that the hierarchy of Authorities under that Act functioned not as Courts or judicial tribunals but as administrative bodies, even though in recording evidence or hearing arguments they acted judicially. The words " offences " and " penalties " used by the Act could not have the same meaning as in Criminal Law and a penalty or confiscation ordered under s. 167(8) of the Act could not be a punishment such as is inflicted by a Criminal Court for a criminal offence. Sewpujanrai Indrasanrai Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs and others, [1959] S.C.R. 821, referred to. ' Nor were the Customs Authorities invested with the powers of a Criminal Court under the Schedule to s. 167 and the procedure laid down by Ch. XVII of the Act, and any orders passed by them either in rem or in personam, by way of confis- cation of the goods or imposition of penalties on the person, could only be in the nature of administrative
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.