LEO ROY FREY versus THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, AMRITSAR AND ANOTHER

LEO ROY FREY versus THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, AMRITSAR AND ANOTHER

Imposition of confiscation and penalties under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act by the Collector does not amount to prosecution and punishment for the same offence as subsequent charges of conspiracy and violations under other statutes; therefore, Article 20(2) is not attracted and the petitioners are not entitled to bar further prosecution or grant of writs.

Parties
Petitioner: Leo Roy Frey; Petitioner: Thomas Dana; Respondent: The Superintendent, District Jail, Amritsar; Respondent: Another (not named)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 October 1957
Procedural Posture
Original Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Order on Petitions
Outcome
Petitions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Criminal Conspiracy, Customs Law Penalties
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Customs Act/smuggling Double Jeopardy Habeas Corpus Certiorari Prohibition Criminal Conspiracy +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leo Roy Frey

Petitioner

Thomas Dana

Petitioner

The Superintendent, District Jail, Amritsar

Respondent

Another (not named)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Original Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Order on Petitions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confiscation and penalty under s. 167(8) of Sea Customs Act bar criminal prosecution for same acts under Art. 20(2) Constitution of India
  2. 2 Whether proceedings before Magistrate amount to double jeopardy prohibited by Article 20(2)
  3. 3 Whether petitioners are entitled to writs of habeas corpus/prohibition/certiorari against criminal prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

Imposition of confiscation and penalties under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act by the Collector does not amount to prosecution and punishment for the same offence as subsequent charges of conspiracy and violations under other statutes; therefore, Article 20(2) is not attracted and the petitioners are not entitled to bar further prosecution or grant of writs.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and habeas corpus dismissed.