TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Prosecution under sections 332, 353, 147 and 149 IPC may proceed; Article 20(2) and 21 protections not breached</h1> SC held that prosecution before the Chief Presidency Magistrate for offences under sections 332, 353, 147 and 149 IPC did not violate articles 20(2) or 21 ... Whether by reason of the proceedings taken by the sea Customs Authorities the appellant could be said to have been prosecuted and punished for the same offence with which he was charged in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay? Held that:- The prosecution of Jagjit Singh therefore before the Magistrate for the offences under sections 332 and 353 and sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code is not in violation of article 20 (2) or article 21 of the Constitution and must therefore proceed. The result therefore is that the Petition No. 170 of 1961 filed by Jagjit Singh will be allowed only to the extent that the appropriate writ of prohibition shall issue against the respondent in regard to his prosecution for having committed a jail offence in resorting to hunger strike, but his prosecution under sections 332 and 353 and sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code will not be affected by this order. The Petitions Nos. 171 of 1951 and 172 of 1951 filed by Vidya Rattan and Parma Nand respectively will be accepted and the appropriate writs of prohibition shall issue against the respondent as prayed for therein. Appeal No. 81 dismissed. Issues: (i) Whether proceedings by the Sea Customs Authorities resulting in confiscation and an option to pay a fine constitute a 'prosecution and punishment' within the meaning of Article 20(2) of the Constitution; (ii) Whether proceedings and punishments imposed by a Jail Superintendent under the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules for a jail offence (hunger strike) constitute a 'prosecution and punishment' within the meaning of Article 20(2), and whether subsequent prosecution before a Magistrate for the same jail offence is competent.Issue (i): Whether confiscation of goods and an option to pay a fine by Sea Customs Authorities amounts to prosecution and punishment under Article 20(2).Analysis: The Sea Customs Act confers powers of search, arrest (with reference to Magistrate), and administrative adjudication of confiscation, penalty or increased duty by Customs officers; appeals lie to administrative authorities and revision to the Central Government; Customs officers are not required to act on legal evidence on oath nor authorised to administer oaths; confiscation proceedings operate largely in rem for levy and recovery of duties and lack prescribed judicial procedure.Conclusion: Proceedings before the Sea Customs Authorities culminating in confiscation and an option to pay a fine do not amount to a prosecution and punishment by a court of law or judicial tribunal within Article 20(2); Article 20(2) is not attracted by such Customs adjudications.Issue (ii): Whether summary disciplinary proceedings and punishments imposed by a Jail Superintendent under the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules for resorting to hunger strike constitute prosecution and punishment under Article 20(2), and whether subsequent referral to a Magistrate after summary punishment is competent.Analysis: The Preventive Detention Act empowers regulation of detention conditions; the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules constitute a self-contained code prescribing offences and summary punishments by the Superintendent under rule 41(1) after such enquiry as he thinks fit, without requirement of oath or formal judicial procedure; rule 41(2) permits reference to a Magistrate only where Superintendent deems summary punishment inadequate. Where the Superintendent has lawfully inflicted punishment under rule 41(1), a later reference to the Magistrate for the same jail offence is unauthorised and not in accordance with procedure established by law; punishments imposed under rule 41(1) amount to punishment for the purpose of Article 20(2).Conclusion: Summary punishments imposed by the Jail Superintendent for the jail offence of resorting to hunger strike constituted punishment within Article 20(2); subsequent prosecution before a Magistrate for that same jail offence (after punishment) is unauthorized and must be quashed. Prosecutions for offences which were not within the Superintendent's jurisdiction to try summarily (e.g., certain offences under the Indian Penal Code) are not barred by Article 20(2) and may proceed.Final Conclusion: Customs confiscation proceedings are administrative and do not bar subsequent criminal prosecution under Article 20(2); summary disciplinary punishment by a Jail Superintendent under a valid rule may amount to punishment within Article 20(2) and bar later criminal prosecution for the same jail offence, but prosecutions for offences beyond the Superintendent's summary jurisdiction remain competent.Ratio Decidendi: Article 20(2) protects against being 'prosecuted and punished' twice only where the prior proceedings constituted a prosecution and punishment before a court of law or a judicial tribunal or where an administrative authority lawfully and judicially imposed punishment such that procedure established by law was observed; purely administrative in rem confiscation proceedings by Customs do not satisfy that requirement, whereas authorised summary punishments under a self-contained disciplinary code, if actually inflicted after enquiry, can constitute punishment within Article 20(2) and bar subsequent prosecution for the same offence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
