Confiscation does not bar criminal prosecution under the Customs Act where separate statutory liability arises, though delay may still defeat interference.

Confiscation proceedings under Chapter XIV of the Customs Act and criminal prosecution for an offence under a different chapter operate in distinct fields, so confiscation of gold does not by itself extinguish liability to prosecution under the Customs Act read with the Gold Control Act. The High Court's view that prior confiscation barred the prosecution was legally incorrect. However, despite rejecting that legal basis, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the quashing order because of the long lapse of time, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of gold in proceedings under Chapter XIV of the Customs Act barred criminal prosecution for an offence under Section 135(B)(2) of the Customs Act read with Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, and whether the High Court was justified in quashing the prosecution under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The confiscation proceeding under Chapter XIV of the Customs Act and the criminal prosecution for offence under Chapter XVI of the Customs Act operate in distinct fields. Confiscation of the goods does not exhaust or nullify the liability to face criminal prosecution for the statutory offence. The High Court's view that prior confiscation prevented prosecution was legally incorrect. At the same time, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order having regard to the long lapse of time.

Conclusion: The view that confiscation barred prosecution was rejected, but the impugned order quashing the criminal proceeding was not interfered with and the appeal stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under one chapter of the Customs Act does not bar criminal prosecution for an offence under a different chapter of the same Act.

---