1988 (4) TMI 48 - SC - Customs

Acquittal under Customs Act /= Bar to Prosecution under Gold Act: Supreme Court Clarifies

The Supreme Court held that acquittal under the Customs Act does not bar subsequent prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act due to the distinct nature of ... Does the acquittal of an accused charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 111 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1969 create a legal bar to the said accused subsequently being prosecuted under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968? Held that:- The High Court was in error in holding that subsequent trial was barred. We accept the appeal on this point and reverse the decision of the Courts below and the High Court. The appellant was understandably seriously aggrieved by the erroneous enunciation of law by the High Court as it would cause prejudice in other matters involving the same point which may have been pending or might arise in future. With the position of law being now settled in the appellant's favour the main objective of the appellant is achieved. Learned counsel for the appellant indicated at the very commencement that the main purpose of the appeal was to have the true position in law settled. That 20 years have elapsed since the date of the seizure (November 15, 1968) is, in our opinion, no ground for not proceeding further with the matter inasmuch as the offence in question is a serious economic offence, which undermines the entire economy of the Nation. The delay occasioned in the working of the judicial system by the ever-increasing workload cannot provide an alibi for upholding such a plea. However in the present case the Sessions Court has quashed the proceedings not only on this ground but also on the basis of certain factual findings as well and the learned Counsel for the appellant himself found it difficult to assail these findings at this juncture. The operative order passed by the High Court cannot therefore be disturbed in view of the facts and circumstances peculiar to this particular case. Issues Involved:1. Whether the acquittal under Section 111 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1969 bars subsequent prosecution under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.2. Interpretation and application of Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.3. Analysis of the ingredients required for offences under the Customs Act versus the Gold (Control) Act.4. Applicability of the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.5. Relevance of precedents, specifically Maqbool Hussain v. The State of Bombay and State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the acquittal under Section 111 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1969 bars subsequent prosecution under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968:The Court examined whether the acquittal of the accused under the Customs Act creates a legal bar to subsequent prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act. The High Court had held that such acquittal barred further prosecution, leading to the dropping of proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court found that the ingredients required to establish offences under the Customs Act are different from those under the Gold (Control) Act. The Customs Act focuses on the prohibition of import and possession of goods liable to confiscation, whereas the Gold (Control) Act deals with the possession of primary gold of a certain purity. The Court concluded that the acquittal under the Customs Act does not bar prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act due to the distinct nature of the offences.2. Interpretation and application of Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898:Section 403(1) of the Cr. P.C. was central to the respondents' plea that the subsequent prosecution was barred. The Court noted that for Section 403(1) to apply, it must be shown that the accused could have been charged alternatively for both offences in the original trial. The Court clarified that Section 236 of the Cr. P.C. applies when there is doubt about which of several offences the facts constitute, allowing for alternative charges. However, in this case, the offences under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act are distinct and could both apply to the same act of possession of gold. Therefore, Section 403(1) does not bar the subsequent prosecution.3. Analysis of the ingredients required for offences under the Customs Act versus the Gold (Control) Act:The Court detailed the different ingredients required for offences under the two Acts. For the Customs Act, the prosecution must prove the prohibition of import and possession of goods liable to confiscation. For the Gold (Control) Act, the focus is on the possession of primary gold of a specific purity. The Court emphasized that the ingredients are not interchangeable, and thus, acquittal under one does not preclude prosecution under the other.4. Applicability of the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India:The respondents relied on the principle of double jeopardy, arguing that they could not be prosecuted twice for the same offence. The Court referred to the precedent set in S.L. Apte's case, which clarified that double jeopardy applies only when the offences are the same. Since the offences under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act are distinct, the principle of double jeopardy does not apply.5. Relevance of precedents, specifically Maqbool Hussain v. The State of Bombay and State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte:The Court examined the precedent set in Maqbool Hussain's case, where it was held that proceedings before Customs authorities did not constitute prosecution, and thus, subsequent criminal prosecution was not barred. The Court also referred to S.L. Apte's case, which distinguished between offences based on their ingredients, reinforcing that different offences arising from the same facts do not attract the bar of double jeopardy. Applying these precedents, the Court held that the subsequent prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act is maintainable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in holding that the subsequent prosecution was barred. The appeal was accepted, and the decision of the lower courts and the High Court was reversed on the question of maintainability of the subsequent prosecution. However, due to the factual findings of the Sessions Court, the operative order of the High Court was not disturbed. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing serious economic offences, despite the delay in judicial proceedings.