THOMAS DANA versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

THOMAS DANA versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

The proceedings for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty by the Collector of Customs under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act are administrative and do not amount to a prosecution for the purposes of Article 20(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, subsequent criminal prosecution and conviction for the same act does not violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

Parties
Petitioner: Thomas Dana; Appellant: Leo Roy Frey; Respondent: State of Punjab
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 November 1958
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution and Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Final Judgment After Hearing Both Petition and Appeal Together
Outcome
Petition and appeal dismissed (majority), minority judgment would have allowed them
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Sea Customs Act Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation, Fundamental Rights Under Article 20(2)
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Customs Law Double Jeopardy Sea Customs Act Enforcement Foreign Exchange Regulation Fundamental Rights Under Article 20(2)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Dana

Petitioner

Leo Roy Frey

Appellant

State of Punjab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution and Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Final Judgment After Hearing Both Petition and Appeal Together

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction and sentence by Magistrate after confiscation and penalty by Collector of Customs violates protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty by the Collector of Customs under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act are administrative and do not amount to a prosecution for the purposes of Article 20(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, subsequent criminal prosecution and conviction for the same act does not violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

Court Disposition

Petition and appeal dismissed (majority), minority judgment would have allowed them

Orders

  • Petition No. 65 of 1958 and Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1958 are dismissed in view of the opinion of the majority.