TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1953 (4) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscation a fine of Rs. 12,000, which option was to be exercised within four months of the date of the order. A copy of the order was sent on the 30th January, 1950, to the appellant. Nobody came forward to redeem the gold. On the 22nd March, 1950, a complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, against the appellant charging him with having committed an offence under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act VII of 1947, read with the notification dated the 25th August, 1948. The appellant thereupon on the 12th June, 1950, filed a petition in the High Court of Bombay under article 228 of the Constitution contending that his prosecution in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate was in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to him under article 20(2) of the Constitution and praying that as the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, the determination of which was necessary for the disposal of the case, the case may be withdrawn from the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the High Court and the High Court may either dispose of the case themselves or determine the question of la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art offence under the Sea Customs Act as also an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was one and the same, viz., importing the gold in contravention of the notification of the Government of,India dated the 25th August, 1948. The appellant could be proceeded against under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act as also under section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act in respect of the said act. Proceedings were in fact taken under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act which resulted in the confiscation of the gold. Further proceedings were taken under section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act by way of filing the complaint aforesaid in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate' Bombay, and the plea which was taken by the accused in bar of the prosecution in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, was that he had already been prosecuted and punished for the same offence and by virtue of the provisions of article 20(2) of the Constitution he could not be prosecuted and punished, again. 4. The word offence has not been defined in the Constitution. But article 367 provides that the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act X of 1897), shall apply for, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not the owner would fall upon whosoever affirmed that he was not the owner. The complaint which was filed in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, also proceeded on the footing that the appellant committed an offence in so far as he brought the gold without the permit from the Reserve Bank of India, that no permit was ever applied for or granted to the appellant and that the appellant had been given an opportunity of showing whether he had obtained such permit but that he failed to produce the same. It appears therefore that the question of the ownership could not assume as much importance is the High Court attached to it. If the Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was prosecuted when proceedings were taken by the Sea Customs Authorities there was not much scope left for the argument that he was not punished by the confiscation of the gold and the option given to him to pay a fine of Rs. 12,000 in lieu of such confiscation. To be deprived of the right of possession of valuable goods may well be regarded in certain circumstances as by itself a punishment. We have therefore got to determine whether under the circumstances the appellant can be said to hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under section 236, or for which he might have been convicted under section 237." 9. The Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution enunciated this principle in the manner following: - "............... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be witness against himself................." Willis in his Constitutional Law, at page 528, observes that the phrase "jeopardy of life or limb" indicates bat the immunity is restricted to crimes of the highest grade, and this is the way Black stone states the rule : "Yet, by a gradual process of liberal construction the courts have extended the scope of the clause to make it applicable to all indictable offences, including misdemeanours.".........." Under the United States rule, to be put in jeopardy there must be a valid indictment or inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] 2 K.B. 309) at page 340: - "A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two or more parties and then involves four requisites :-(1) The presentation (not necessarily orally) of their case by the parties to the dispute; (2) If the dispute between them is a question of fact, the ascertainment of the fact by means of evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the assistance of argument by or on behalf of the parties on the evidence; (3) If the dispute between them is a question of law, the submission of legal argument by the parties; and (4) A decision which disposes of the whole matter by a finding upon the facts in dispute and application of the law of the land to the facts so found, including where required a ruling upon any disputed question of law." The question whether the Sea Customs Authorities when they entertained proceedings for confiscation of the gold in question acted as a judicial tribunal has got to be determined in accordance with the above tests. 13. The Sea Customs Act, 1878, 'was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the levy of sea customs duties. The hierarchy of the officials are the Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation, increased rate of duty or penalty can be adjudged by the Customs Authorities therein mentioned and section 183 provides for option to be given to the owner of the goods confiscated to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the officer thinks fit, Section 186 provides that the award of any confiscation, penalty or increased rate of duty under the Act by an officer of Customs is not to prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under any other law. An appeal is provided under section 188 from a decision or order of the officer of Customs to the Chief Customs Authority who is thereupon to make such further enquiry and pass such order as he thinks fit confirming, altering or annulling the decision or order appealed against. Section 191 provides for a revision by the Central Government on the application of a person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an officer of Customs or the Chief Customs Authority from which no appeal lies. Section 193 provides for the enforcement of the payment of penalty or increased rate of duty as adjudged against any person by an officer of Customs. If such officer is not able to realise the unpai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceed against other goods of the party in the possession of the Customs Authorities. But if such penalty or increased rate of duty cannot be realised therefrom the only thing which he, can do is to notify the matter to the appropriate Magistrate who is the only person empowered to enforce payment as if such penalty or increased rate of duty had been a fine inflicted by himself. The process of recovery can be issued only by the Magistrate and not by the Customs Authority. All these provisions go to show that far from being authorities bound by any rules of evidence or procedure established by law and invested with power to enforce their own judgments or orders the Sea Customs Authorities are merely constituted administrative machinery for the purpose of adjudging confiscation, increased rates of duty and penalty prescribed in the Act. The same view of the functions and powers of Sea Customs Officers was expressed in& decision of the Bombay High Court to which our attention was called. (See Mahadev Ganesh Jamsandekar v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1922) I.L.R. 46 Bom. 732. 16. We are of the opinion that the Sea Customs Authorities are not a judicial tribunal an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and they continued to be separately confined till the 10th April, 1960. It appears that more than 7-1/2 months after the hunger strike the Jail Superintendent, Shri K. K. Matta, filed a complaint against Jagjit Singh in the Court of Shri P. L. Sondhi, M.T.C., Ferozepur, under rule 41(2) of the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules charging him with having committed a jail offence in resorting to hunger strike. He also filed a complaint before the same Magistrate against Jagjit Singh for having committed offences under sections 332 and 353 and sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. He further filed against Vidya Rattan and Parma Nand complaints under rule 41 (2) of the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules for having committed a jail offence in resorting to hunger strike. On the 16th February, 1951, the three detenu petitioners,, filed before this Court petitions under article 32 of the Constitution asking for the issue of a writ of prohibition not to proceed with the prosecutions of the petitioners in the said cases on the ground that they had been prosecuted and punished for the same offence already by the Jail Superintendent and therefore they could not be prosecuted and punished for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0, viz.:- (i) assaults, insults, threatens or obstructs any fellow prisoner, any officer of the jail or any other Government servant, or any person employed in or visiting the jail, or....... (xii-a) goes on hunger-strike (other than a token strike), or...... shall be deemed to have committed a jail off once. 24. Rule 41 is important and bears particularly on the question which we have to decide. It provides:- "(1) Where upon such enquiry as he thinks fit to make, the Superintendent is satisfied that a detenu is guilty of a jail offence, he may award the detenu one or more of the following punishments: - (a) confinement in cells for a period not exceeding 14 days...... (d) cancellation or reduction, for a period not exceeding two months of the privilege of writing and receiving letters or of receiving newspapers an books, (e) cancellation or reduction, for a period not exceeding two months of the privilege of having interviews..... (2) If any detenu is guilty of a jail offence which by reason of his having frequently committed such A offences or otherwise is in the opinion of the Superintendent not adequately puni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not adequately punishable by him that he, can send the case to the Magistrate. If he actually himself punishes he cannot, under this rule, refer the case again to the Magistrate. A reference by him after punishment it will be wholly unauthorised and without jurisdiction and the prosecution before the Magistrate would be illegal and not in accordance with procedure established by law. 26. It was contended that under sections 45, 46 and 52 of the Prisons Act (IX of 1894) the Jail Superintendent was constituted an authority bound to act judicially for the purposes of enquiry into and trial of the prisoners for similar offences and the detenus under the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules, 1950, being put in the same category as civil prisoners the proceedings before the Jail Superintendent for having committed the Jail offences under rules 40 and 41 above amounted to a prosecution of the petitioners before him as a judicial tribunal. It was on the other hand contended by the Advocate-General of Punjab that the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules, 1950, constituted a self-contained code regulating the place and conditions of detention of these detenus, that the aforesaid sections of the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioners may well complain of a breach or a threatened breach of the fundamental right guaranteed to them by article 21 of the Constitution in that the prosecution of the petitioners before the Magistrate for the jail offence of having resorted to the hunger strike was not competent according to the procedure established by law. The Petitions Nos. 171 of 1951 and 172 of 1951 filed by Vidya Rattan and Parma Nand must' therefore be accepted and their prosecution in the Court of Shri P. L. Soudhi, M.I.C., Ferozepur, under rule 41(2) of the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules, 1950, for having committed a jail offence in resorting to hunger strike must be quashed. 28. The same order will also be passed in the petition of Jagjit Singh, being Petition No. 170 of 1951, in regard to the jail offence committed by him by having resorted to the hunger strike. Jagjit Singh however is being prosecuted in the Court of the Magistrate for having committed offences under sections 332 and 353 as also sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It was contended by the Advocate- General of Punjab that there was no prosecution and no punishment awarded to Jagjit Singh in regard to there ....