http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: LEO ROY FREY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL,AMRITSAR, AND ANOTHER(and

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/10/1957

BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA DAS, S.K. SARKAR, A.K. BOSE, VIVIAN

CITATION:  1958 AIR  119            1958 SCR  822

ACT:        Sea  Customs-Award of confiscation and Penalty-If a  bar  to        prosecution  for criminal conspiracy-Sea Customs  Act,  1878        (VIII  of 1878), ss. 167(8), 186-Indian Penal Code (Act  XLV        of 1860),s.120B-Constitution of India, Art. 20(2).

HEADNOTE:        The petitioners were found guilty under s. 167(8) of the Sea        Customs Act and the currency and other goods recovered  from        their   possession  were  confiscated  and  heavy   personal        penalties imposed on them by the Collector of Central Excise        and Land Customs.  Complaints were thereafter lodged against        them  by  the  Customs  authorities  before  the  Additional        District Magistrate under s. 120B of the Indian Penal  Code,        read with S. 23/23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act,        1947,  and s. i67(8i) of the Sea Customs Act, as also  under        other  sections  of  the two latter  Acts.   The  Magistrate        granted  bail  but  they could  not  furnish  the  requisite        security and were, therefore, kept in judicial custody.   By        two petitions under Art. 32 Of the Constitution they  prayed        for the issue of writs of certiorari and/or prohibition  for        quashing  the proceedings pending against them in the  Court        of  the Magistrate as also for the issue of writs of  habeas        corpus. It was contended on their behalf that in view of the        provision  of Art. 20(2) Of the Constitution they could  not        be  prosecuted and punished twice over for the same  offence        and the proceedings pending before the Additional Magistrate        violated  the  protection  afforded by  Art.  20(2)  of  the        Constitution.        Held,  that  the contention was without  substance  and  the        petitions must be dismissed.        The  fact that in imposing confiscation and penalties  under        s.   167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, the Collector of Customs        acts        823        judicially  is  not  decisive  and  does  not  attract   the        protection  of Art. 20(2) of the Constitution.  Section  186        of  the  Act does not prevent the infliction  of  any  other        punishment to which the person concerned may be liable under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

      any other law.        F.   N.  Roy  v. Collectoy of Customs, Petition NO.  438  Of        955, decided on May 16, 1957, referred to.        Criminal  conspiracy  is  an offence under s.  120B  of  the        Indian Penal Code but not so under the Sea Customs Act,  and        the  petitioners were not and could not be charged  with  it        before the Collector of Customs.  It is an offence  separate        from  the  crime  which it may have for its  object  and  is        complete  even before the crime is attempted  or  completed,        and even when attempted or completed, it forms no ingredient        of such crime.        United  States v. Rabinowith, (1915) 238 U.S.  78,  referred        to.

JUDGMENT:        ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 126 and 127 of  1957.        (Under   Article  32  of  the  Constitution  of  India   for        enforcement of Fundamental Rights).        N.   C. Chatterjee and Nanak Chand, for the petitioners.        M.   C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, B. Sen and  R.        H. Dhebar, for the respondents.        1957.   October  31.  The following Order of the  Court  was        delivered by        DAS  C.J.--In  their  respective  separate  petitions,   the        petitioners pray (1) for an order, direction or writ in  the        nature  of  certiorari and/or prohibition  calling  for  the        records  in  the  case of the Assistant  Collector  of  Land        Customs   &  Central  Excise,  Amritsar,  against  the   two        petitioners  and  one  Moshe  Baruk,  on  the  file  of  the        Additional District Magistrate of Amritsar and for  quashing        the proceedings therein, and (2) for an order, direction  or        writ  in  the  nature of habeas corpus  for  the  production        before  this Court of the persons of the petitioners  to  be        dealt with according to law.        The facts appearing from the records are shortly as follows:        The petitioner, Leo Roy Frey, purchased a car No. C.D. 75 TT        6587 from an officer of the American Embassy in Paris.  This        car was sold by the petitioner Frey to the petitioner Thomas        Dana,  in May 1957.  On transfer, the car was registered  in        the  name of the petitioner Dana on May 18, 1957.  Both  the        petitioners thereafter booked their passages through the,        824        American Express Company from Geneva to Bombay by s.s. ASIA.        The  car  was  also shipped by the  same  vessel.   The  two        petitioners  disembarked at Karachi Ion June 11,  1957,  and        after  a brief halt at Karachi, they left together by  plane        for  Bombay and reached Bombay on the same day.  petitioners        stayed together at the Ambassador Hotel at Bombay from  June        11,  1957, to the afternoon of June 19, 1957.  On  the  last        mentioned date both of them left Bombay by plane and reached        Delhi the same evening.  They occupied room No. I at Janpath        Hotel  and  stayed  there from June 19, to  June  29,  1957.        After the car, which had been booked by rail from Bombay  to        Delhi, had arrived in Delhi, the two petitioners left  Delhi        and travelled together in the car from Delhi to Amritsar  on        June  22,  1957,  and after staying the  night  there,  they        arrived at Attari Road Land Customs Station on their way out        to  Pakistan on June 23, 1957.  The Customs  officers  there        required  the petitioners to declare in Baggage  Declaration        Forms supplied to them the articles which they had in  their        possession, including any goods which were subject to Export        Trade  Control and/or Foreign Exchange  restrictions  and/or        were dutiable.      Each  of the petitioners  completed  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

      Baggage   Declaration Form and handed it over to the Customs        authorities  duly  signed  by him.  On  that  very  day  the        persons  of each of the petitioners were also  searched  and        certain  currency  and movable property which had  not  been        included in the baggage declaration were recovered.  Amongst        other things, a pocket radio and a time-piece were recovered        from  the  petitioner Dana and a pistol of 22 bore  with  48        live  cartridges  of the same bore was  recovered  from  the        person  of the petitioner Frey.  Both the  petitioners  were        put under arrest on the same day, namely, June 23, 1957.  On        June 30,1957, the petitioners were interrogated and the  car        was  thoroughly  searched.  As a result  of  such  intensive        search  and  minute inspection, a secret chamber  above  the        petrol  tank was discovered. On opening the secret  chamber,        Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000 and U.S. dollars        amounting to 10,000 were discovered in the concealed  recess        and        825        seized by the police.  On July 7, 1957, notice was issued to        the  petitioner Dana under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs  Act        to  show cause before the Collector why under  that  section        penalty  should  not be imposed on, him and why  the  seized        articles  should not be confiscated.  A similar  notice  was        served  on  the  petitioner  Frey, on  July  9,  1957.   The        petitioners  made representations in writing and  were  also        heard in person.  On July 24, 1957, the Collector of Central        Excise  and Land Customs made an order for the  confiscation        of the currency and also of the motor car with an option  to        the  petitioner  Dana to redeem the car on  payment  of  Rs.        50,000 and also ordered confiscation of articles other  than        the currency recovered from the car subject to redemption on        payment  of Rs. 100.  The Collector was also satisfied  that        each of the two petitioners was equally guilty of an offence        under  s.  167(8)  of  the Sea Customs  Act  and  imposed  a        personal   penalty   of  Rs.  25,00,000  on  each   of   the        petitioners,  to be paid within two months from the date  of        the  order  or  such extended  period  as  the  adjudicating        officer might allow.        On  August 12, 1957, the Assistant Collector of Customs  and        Central Excise, Amritsar, lodged a complaint against the two        petitioners  and  one  Moshe  Baruk  of  Bombay  before  the        Additional  District Magistrate, Amritsar, under s. 23  read        with s. 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947  and        s. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, as amended by  the        Sea  Customs (Amendment) Act, 1955.  Subsequently,  a  fresh        complaint was filed by the same Assistant Collector of  Land        Customs  and Central Excise against the two petitioners  and        the   said  Moshe  Baruk  before  the  Additional   District        Magistrate,  Amritsar,’  under s. 23 read with s. 8  of  the        Foreign  Exchange Regulations Act, 1947, and s.  167(81)  of        the  Sea Customs Act and s’ 120-B of the Indian Penal  Code,        read with S.   23/23-B, Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and        s.   167(81),  Sea  Customs  Act, 1878.   A  case  was  also        started  against the petitioner Frey under the  Indian  Arms        Act for being in possession of the pistol and the cartridges        in contravention of the provisions of s. 20 of        826        that  Act.  He was ordered to be let out on bail in the  sum        of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the Arms Act case, which he        furnished.  The trial of the Arms Act case has concluded  in        the  Court of the Additional District Magistrate but  orders        are pending.  The petitioners, Frey and Dana, were  directed        to  be released on bail in the sum of rupees five lakhs  and        ten  lakhs respectively, which were finally reduced  by  the        High Court to rupees two lakhs and five lakhs  respectively.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

      Neither  of  the  petitioners could  furnish  the  requisite        security and they have, therefore, been in judicial custody.        They  have now come forward with these applications for  the        reliefs  already  mentioned.  Their main  contention,  urged        before us, is that they have been deprived of their  liberty        otherwise  than in accordance with procedure established  by        law.        In  ordinary  circumstances the production of the  order  or        warrant for the apprehension and detention of an  undertrial        prisoner would be a good return to a writ of habeas  corpus.        But the petitioners contend that in this case there has been        a  violation of their fundamental right under Art. 20(2)  of        the  Constitution.   Relying  on  the  observations  in  the        decision  of the Calcutta High Court in Assistant  Collector        v.  Soorajmal  (1), and in the decision of the  Madras  High        Court in Collector of Customs v. A. H. A. Rahiman (2), it is        contended  that  in  making the order  of  confiscation  and        penalty  under  s.  167(8)  of  the  Sea  Customs  Act,  the        Collector   was   acting  judicially   and   therefore   the        petitioners  have already been proceeded with  and  punished        for the offence of importation and attempted exportation  of        goods,  the importation or exoprtation of which is  for  the        time being prohibited or restricted by or under chap.  IV of        the  Sea Customs Act, and consequently they cannot again  be        prosecuted and punished for the same offence.  The  argument        is  that  the  pending  proceedings  before  the  Additional        District  Magistrate offend against the protection given  to        the  petitioners  by Art. 20(2) of  Constitution.   That  in        imposing  confiscation  and  penalties  the  Collector  acts        judicially has been held by this Court in its judgment        (I) (1952) 56 C.W.N. 452.        (2) A.I.R. 957 Mad. 496.        827        pronounced  on  May 16, 1957, in F. N. Roy v.  Collector  of        Customs (1).  No question has been raised as to the  maximum        amount of penalty that can be imposed under s. 167(8) and we        are  not called upon to express any opinion on  that  point.        But the fact that the Collector of Customs acted  judicially        is  not  decisive  and  does  not  necessarily  attract  the        protection  guaranteed by Art. 20(2) and the question  still        remains  whether  the  petitioners’ case  comes  within  the        provisions  of Art. 20(2).  That article protects  a  person        from  being  ,prosecuted and punished for the  same  offence        more  than  once".  The question has to be  answered  as  to        whether  the petitioners had previously been prosecuted  and        punished  for the same offence for which they are now  being        prosecuted  before the Additional District Magistrate.   The        proceedings  before  the Customs authorities were  under  s.        167(8)  of the Sea Customs Act.  Under s. 186 of  that  Act,        the award of any confiscation, penalty or increased rate  of        duty  under  that  Act by an officer  of  Customs  does  not        prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person        affected  thereby  is  liable  under  any  other  law.   The        offences with which the petitioners are now charged  include        an  offence  under  s. 120B, Indian  Penal  Code.   Criminal        conspiracy is an offence created and made punishable by  the        Indian  Penal  Code.   It is not an offence  under  the  Sea        Customs Act.  The offence of a conspiracy to commit a  crime        is a different offence from the crime that is the object  of        the   conspiracy   because  the  conspiracy   precedes   the        commission of the crime and is complete before the crime  is        attempted  or  completed,  equally the  crime  attempted  or        completed does not require the element of conspiracy as  one        of  its  ingredients.  They are, therefore,  quite  separate        offences.   This  is also the view expressed by  the  United

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

      States  Supreme  Court in United States v.  Rabinowich  (2).        The  offence  of  criminal conspiracy was  not  the  subject        matter  of the proceedings before the Collector  of  Customs        and  therefore it cannot be said that the  petitioners  have        already been prosecuted and punished for the "same offence".        (1)  Petition NO. 438 Of 1955. 105        (2) (1915) 238 U.S. 78.        828        It is true that the Collector of Customs has used the  words        " punishment " and " conspiracy ", but those words were used        in  order to bring out that each of the two petitioners  was        guilty  of  the offence under s. 167(8) of the  Sea  Customs        Act.   The petitioners were not and could never  be  charged        with criminal conspiracy before the Collector of Customs and        therefore Art. 20(2) cannot be invoked.  In this view of the        matter it is not necessary for us, on the present  occasion,        to  refer  to the case of Maqbool Hussain v.  The  State  of        Bombay (1) and to discuss whether the words used in Art.  20        do  or do not contemplate only proceedings of the nature  of        criminal  proceedings  before a court of law or  a  judicial        tribunal as ordinarily understood.  In our opinion, Art.  20        has  no  application to the facts of the present  case.   No        other points having been urged before us, these applications        must be dismissed.        Applications dismissed.