Distinct statutory offences allow separate penalty where gold was in conscious possession despite failure of Customs abetment charge.

Liability under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with the Gold Control Act, 1968 was treated as distinct from penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 because each regime addressed different conduct and legal ingredients. Abetment-related exoneration under the Customs Act did not bar independent action where contraband gold was found in the conscious possession and control of the persons concerned, since gold-control liability arose from possession, acquisition, control, or dealing in gold. Authorities on double jeopardy and general statutory construction were held inapplicable on these facts. The same reasoning disposed of the proposed questions of law, so no separate referable question remained and the reference application was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether exoneration from abetment under the Customs Act, 1962 barred penalty for the same conduct under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with the Gold Control Act, 1968, and whether any referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's earlier decision.

Analysis: The provisions invoked under the Customs Act and the Gold Control regime were held to operate in different fields. Penalty under the Customs Act concerned improper importation and abetment connected with smuggling, whereas liability under the Defence of India Rules and the Gold Control Act turned on possession, control, acquisition, or dealing in gold and the corresponding prohibition. The finding that contraband gold was recovered from the conscious possession and control of the appellants meant that liability under the gold-control framework was independently attracted even if the abetment charge under the Customs Act had failed. The authorities cited on double jeopardy and general statutory construction were held inapplicable on these facts. As the same reasoning answered both proposed questions, no separate referable question of law remained.

Conclusion: The penalty under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with the Gold Control Act, 1968 was sustainable independently of the Customs Act proceedings, and the application for reference was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two enactments create distinct offences or liabilities on different factual and legal bases, failure of a charge under one enactment does not preclude independent penalty or conviction under the other.

---