Double jeopardy under Section 403 fails where Customs and Gold (Control) offences have distinct ingredients and separate proof requirements.

A prior acquittal bars a later prosecution only where the second charge is for the same offence or for an offence with substantially identical ingredients. Applying that test, the Court distinguished the Customs Act offence, which turned on prohibited import and possession of goods liable to confiscation, from the Gold (Control) Act offence, which required possession or control of primary gold of the requisite purity. Because the two statutes created distinct offences, Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not apply. The later prosecution was therefore not barred, and the objection under Section 403(1) failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether acquittal in a prosecution under the Customs Act barred a later prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act on the same facts under Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: The decisive test is whether the two offences have the same ingredients so that the facts constituting one would be sufficient to warrant conviction for the other. The Customs Act charge required proof of prohibited import and possession of goods liable to confiscation, whereas the Gold (Control) Act charge required proof of possession or control of primary gold of the requisite purity. The two offences were therefore distinct in scope and content. Since the same act of possession could amount to both offences if the respective ingredients were proved, the matter was not one where an alternative charge under Section 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 could have been framed. The plea based on Section 403(1) therefore failed, and the case fell within Section 403(2), which permits a later trial for a distinct offence for which a separate charge could have been made on the former trial. The earlier authority on customs confiscation did not assist the respondents because it was concerned with a different statutory setting and did not establish a bar on the present facts.

Conclusion: The subsequent prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act was not barred; the objection under Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was rejected and the legal position was held in favour of the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior acquittal bars a later prosecution only where the later charge is for the same offence or for an offence whose ingredients are substantially identical; where the two enactments create distinct offences with different essential ingredients, Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not apply.

---