Double jeopardy under Article 20(2) did not bar later prosecution where customs penalty and criminal conspiracy were distinct offences.

Prior confiscation and penalty under the Sea Customs Act did not bar a later criminal prosecution on the ground of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The customs action under Section 167(8) was distinct from the subsequent prosecution, which included criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC; conspiracy was treated as a separate offence because it is complete before the substantive offence is attempted or committed and is not an ingredient of that offence. Section 186 of the Sea Customs Act was also read as preserving punishment under other laws. Article 20(2) therefore did not apply, and the later prosecution was not barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether prior confiscation and penalty proceedings under the Sea Customs Act barred the subsequent criminal prosecution on the ground of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The earlier customs proceedings were taken under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, while the later criminal case included, among other charges, an offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The offence of conspiracy was held to be distinct from the substantive customs offence, because conspiracy is complete before the substantive offence is attempted or committed and is not an ingredient of that offence. Section 186 of the Sea Customs Act also makes it clear that confiscation or penalty under that Act does not prevent punishment under any other law. The petitioners were therefore not shown to have been prosecuted and punished for the same offence.

Conclusion: Article 20(2) did not apply, and the subsequent prosecution was not barred.

---