Article 20(3) objection fails where no criminal proceeding is pending and customs may summon for suspected smuggled goods.

Article 20(3) protection was unavailable because the notice for prosecution had been cancelled and no criminal proceeding was then intended, so the petitioner was not a person accused of an offence. The customs enquiry was within jurisdiction because "smuggling" was construed in its ordinary sense to include illegal import by false declaration, and the officers reasonably believed the goods had been wrongly described. The absence of a formal allegation of smuggling in the summons did not invalidate the power to examine persons connected with suspected smuggled goods, and no mala fide exercise of power was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was a person accused of an offence so as to attract Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, and whether the Assistant Collector of Customs had jurisdiction to summon the petitioner under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act for examination in relation to suspected smuggled goods.

Analysis: The notice calling for prosecution had been cancelled, and the Department made it clear that no criminal proceeding was then intended. The petitioner therefore could not be treated as a person accused of an offence within Article 20(3). The expression "smuggling" was construed in its ordinary sense as illegal import, including import effected by a false declaration of the nature of the goods. Since the customs officers reasonably believed that the goods had been wrongly described, the enquiry fell within Section 171-A. The absence of a formal allegation of smuggling in the summons did not defeat the power to examine persons in relation to goods reasonably believed to have been smuggled, and the Court found no basis to hold that the power was being exercised mala fide.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to resist examination on Article 20(3) grounds, and the summons under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act was within jurisdiction.

---