Confiscation and penalty proceedings under the Gold Control Act are not prosecution, so later criminal trial is allowed.

Proceedings for confiscation and penalty under the Gold Control Act are administrative measures, not criminal prosecution, because they are imposed by an authority under the statutory confiscation scheme rather than by a Criminal Court. As a result, Article 20(2) on double jeopardy is not attracted, and subsequent prosecution for the statutory offence remains permissible. The inclusion of a judicial member in the appellate tribunal does not alter the character of the original proceedings. Section 77, allowing prosecution after confiscation and penalty proceedings, is therefore valid, and the challenge to criminal prosecution fails.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings for confiscation and penalty under the Gold Control Act, 1968 amount to prosecution so as to attract Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, and whether Section 77 of the Act is unconstitutional for permitting prosecution after such proceedings.

Analysis: Proceedings under Sections 71 and 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 are distinct from criminal prosecution. Confiscation and penalty are imposed by an administrative authority and do not constitute trial before a Criminal Court. The offence punishable under Section 85(1) arises only upon proof in a criminal trial, whereas confiscation and penalty are measures for contravention dealt with under the statutory scheme of confiscation and penalty. The inclusion of a judicial member in the appellate tribunal does not convert the original administrative proceedings into prosecution or transform the appellate body into a Criminal Court. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had already treated analogous customs and sea customs proceedings as non-criminal for purposes of double jeopardy.

Conclusion: Proceedings under Sections 71 and 74 do not amount to prosecution, Article 20(2) is not attracted, Section 77 is valid, and the challenge to the initiation of criminal prosecution fails.

Final Conclusion: The original petitions were rejected because confiscation and penalty proceedings under the Act do not bar subsequent criminal prosecution for the statutory offences.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation and penalty proceedings imposed by an administrative authority are not prosecution for an offence, and therefore do not attract the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

---