Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay

Facts

• Maqbool Hussain brought gold into India without declaring it, in contravention of customs regulations
• Sea Customs authorities confiscated the gold under the Sea Customs Act after adjudication proceedings
• He was subsequently prosecuted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for the same underlying conduct
• He argued the later criminal prosecution violated Art.20(2), since he had already been "prosecuted and punished" (through confiscation)

Issue

1. Whether confiscation proceedings before Sea Customs authorities amount to a "prosecution" before a "court or judicial tribunal" for Art.20(2), such that a subsequent criminal prosecution is barred.

Held

• Sea Customs authorities, while exercising adjudicatory functions and imposing confiscation, are not a court or judicial tribunal in the sense contemplated by Art.20(2)
• Confiscation proceedings are essentially administrative or revenue proceedings, not a criminal prosecution in a court of law
• Since there was no prior "prosecution" before a court or judicial tribunal, the subsequent criminal case did not offend Art.20(2)
• For Art.20(2) to apply, the earlier proceeding must have been before a body exercising judicial functions akin to a court, not merely an administrative authority imposing penalties

Ratio Decidendi

The protection against double jeopardy under Art.20(2) is confined to cases where the earlier proceeding was a genuine "prosecution" before a "court or judicial tribunal" exercising judicial power; administrative adjudication, such as customs confiscation proceedings, does not qualify, leaving room for a separate criminal prosecution on the same facts.