https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42582 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. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:56:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42582 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42582