Double jeopardy and customs adjudication: final confiscation order may inform criminal proceedings but not bar prosecution.

Customs confiscation proceedings do not attract the constitutional bar of double jeopardy against a later criminal prosecution because they are revenue proceedings and the confiscation order operates in rem. Even so, a final customs adjudication refusing penalty may remain a relevant circumstance in criminal proceedings and may be considered under the Evidence Act. Where no statutory appeal or revision is pursued against the customs order, it attains finality and cannot be collaterally challenged. On that basis, the magistrate's independent assessment that conviction under the Gold Control law was not warranted was treated as a plausible judicial view, so revisional interference was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal court could take into account the customs adjudication order refusing penalty and confiscating the gold, and whether the revisional court should interfere with the magistrate's discharge order.

Analysis: Protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India was held to be unavailable as between customs adjudication and criminal prosecution, because confiscation proceedings by customs are revenue proceedings and the confiscation order operates in rem. Even so, the absence of any penalty in the customs adjudication was a relevant circumstance which the magistrate could consider under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act. The customs order had attained finality since no appeal or revision was pursued under Sections 128 or 131 of the Customs Act, 1962, and an administrative order cannot be collaterally challenged without exhausting the statutory remedies. The magistrate had independently assessed the evidence and concluded that conviction under Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 was not warranted, so the discharge could not be treated as perverse or without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The discharge order was upheld and revisional interference was refused.

Final Conclusion: The criminal discharge stood affirmed because the customs adjudication had attained finality and provided a relevant factual circumstance, but it did not create a bar of double jeopardy or justify interference with the magistrate's judicial assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: A final customs adjudication refusing penalty, though not a bar under double jeopardy, may be treated as a relevant circumstance in criminal proceedings, and revisional interference is unwarranted where the magistrate has independently evaluated the evidence and reached a plausible discharge.

---