Double jeopardy barred a second customs prosecution, while limitation and evidentiary objections were left for trial.

A later prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act was barred qua one accused because it arose from the same fraudulent export transactions, forged documents and wrongful DEPB benefits as an earlier CBI case that had already ended in conviction and sentence; Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC therefore prohibited a second prosecution. As to the other accused, the Court declined quashing because statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be assessed as trial evidence at the quashing stage, and the limitation objection under Section 468 CrPC was left to be raised before the trial court, especially since Section 135 carried a higher punishment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the criminal complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was liable to be quashed qua one accused on the ground of double jeopardy, and (ii) whether the complaint was liable to be quashed qua the other accused on the ground of limitation or for want of sufficient material at the stage of quashing.

Issue (i): Whether the criminal complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was liable to be quashed qua one accused on the ground of double jeopardy.

Analysis: The complaint and the earlier CBI prosecution arose from substantially the same factual foundation, namely, fraudulent export transactions, forged documents, and wrongful procurement of DEPB benefits. The earlier prosecution had already culminated in conviction and sentence for offences built on the same acts, attracting the constitutional protection against being prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence. The statutory bar under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also applied on the facts found by the Court.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by double jeopardy qua that accused and was rightly quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was liable to be quashed qua the other accused on the ground of limitation or for want of sufficient material at the stage of quashing.

Analysis: The Court held that the material collected, including statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, could not be weighed as if at trial in proceedings for quashing. On the plea of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court found that the complaint also invoked Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, which carried a higher punishment, and directed that the plea of limitation be raised before the trial court. In these circumstances, no ground was made out for premature quashing.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed qua that accused.

Final Conclusion: The decision sustained the prosecution against one accused while terminating it against the other, with the complaint quashed only to the extent it was hit by the constitutional and statutory bar against double jeopardy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the later prosecution is founded on substantially the same acts and factual allegations as an earlier prosecution that has already resulted in conviction, the second proceeding is barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; however, quashing is not warranted where the challenge is confined to limitation or disputed evidentiary matters requiring trial.

---