Double jeopardy not attracted where theft conviction and customs prosecution rest on distinct facts and legal ingredients.

Prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act was not barred by double jeopardy where the earlier theft conviction arose from a separate complaint and distinct factual and legal premises. The customs case concerned unauthorized possession and dealing in foreign-origin gold biscuits liable to confiscation, which had not been determined in the prior proceeding. The complaint also disclosed a prima facie offence through recovery of foreign-marked gold biscuits and the petitioner's statement. Issues about lawful import and confiscability were held fit for trial, and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was not to be used to quash the prosecution at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the previous conviction for theft under the Indian Penal Code barred prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of double jeopardy; (ii) Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and warranted quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the previous conviction for theft under the Indian Penal Code barred prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of double jeopardy.

Analysis: The earlier conviction was based on a separate complaint concerning theft and on the petitioner's own confession, whereas the customs complaint related to unauthorized possession and dealing with gold biscuits of foreign origin liable to confiscation. The two proceedings were founded on distinct factual and legal premises, and the earlier criminal case did not determine the legality of import, possession, or confiscability under the Customs Act.

Conclusion: The plea of double jeopardy failed and the customs prosecution was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and warranted quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The record showed recovery of 79 gold biscuits of foreign markings from the petitioner's possession and his statement before customs authorities. The Court held that possession, carrying, keeping, concealing or otherwise dealing with goods known or believed to be liable to confiscation could attract Section 135, and that disputed questions regarding lawful import and the effect of the earlier conviction were matters for trial, not for quashing at the threshold. The limited inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 could not be used where the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and no exceptional ground of abuse of process was shown.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed a prima facie offence and no ground for quashing was made out.

Final Conclusion: The petition for quashing was rejected, and the customs prosecution was allowed to proceed before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Distinct proceedings based on separate legal ingredients and separate factual foundations do not attract double jeopardy, and a complaint disclosing a prima facie offence should not be quashed under inherent jurisdiction at the threshold unless exceptional abuse of process is demonstrated.

---