Special statute prevails over customs prosecution for antiquities contraventions; confiscation and penalty may still proceed under customs law.

Where a special statute prescribes punishment for breach of an antiquities prohibition, prosecution cannot be maintained under the Customs Act for the same contravention. The Delhi HC noted that, after the 1972 enactment, customs law remained relevant only for confiscation and penalty, while criminal punishment for violating the prohibition under Section 3 lay under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The Court also treated the earlier precedent on this point as continuing to apply, and held that an SLP pending without stay or reversal did not affect its force. The complaint under the Customs Act was therefore not maintainable and the discharge order stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution against the respondent was maintainable under the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged contravention relating to an antiquity, or whether punishment could be launched only under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.

Analysis: The Court noted that under the earlier statutory regime, the provisions of the Customs Act were made applicable to contraventions concerning antiquities, but the amended law under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 no longer attracted all provisions of the Customs Act for prosecution. The Customs Act could still be invoked for confiscation and penalty, but the punishment for breach of the prohibition under Section 3 lay under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The Court further held that the earlier precedent on this issue continued to apply and that the pendency of an SLP without stay or reversal did not dilute its effect.

Conclusion: The complaint under the Customs Act was not maintainable for prosecution, and the discharge order was ; the revision petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court affirmed that confiscation and penalty could proceed under customs law, but criminal prosecution for breach of the antiquities prohibition had to be under the special enactment, not the Customs Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute expressly provides punishment for contravention and confines customs law to confiscation or penalty, prosecution cannot be maintained under the Customs Act for the same breach.

---