Customs adjudication and double jeopardy: majority held revenue penalty proceedings did not bar later criminal prosecution under Article 20(2).

Customs adjudication under the Sea Customs Act was treated by the majority as a revenue proceeding, not a prosecution before a court or judicial tribunal, so confiscation and penalty imposed by customs officers did not trigger the Article 20(2) bar against double jeopardy. The subsequent criminal prosecution was therefore maintainable, and the constitutional plea failed. K. Subba Rao, J. dissented, holding that the customs authority acted as a judicial tribunal and that the person had already faced prosecution and punishment on the same facts, which would have made the later criminal case unconstitutional.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings before the customs authorities amounted to a prosecution and punishment for the same offence so as to bar the subsequent criminal prosecution under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The majority held that adjudication by the customs authorities under the Sea Customs Act was a revenue proceeding and not a prosecution before a court or judicial tribunal. It distinguished confiscation and penalty imposed by customs officers from criminal prosecution and punishment, and held that the statutory scheme treated customs adjudication and criminal trial as distinct. The earlier customs proceedings therefore did not attract the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

Conclusion: Article 20(2) was not violated, and the subsequent criminal prosecution was maintainable.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: K. Subba Rao, J. dissented, holding that the customs authority acted as a judicial tribunal when imposing penalty on the person concerned, and that the same facts had already led to prosecution and punishment before that authority. On that view, the later criminal prosecution infringed Article 20(2).

Final Conclusion: The constitutional plea of double jeopardy failed by majority, and the convictions and sentences were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For Article 20(2) to apply, the earlier proceeding must amount to a prosecution and punishment before a court or judicial tribunal for the same offence; customs adjudication of confiscation and penalty under the Sea Customs Act, as structured in the majority view, is not such a prosecution.

---