Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Delhi High Court upholding the discharge of the respondent, Sharad Gandhi, from offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged export of antiquities. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had accepted the respondent's contention that the Customs Act prosecution was barred by the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, relying on a previous High Court decision in Dr. V.J.A. Flynn vs. S.S. Chauhan & Another. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the Antiquities Act, particularly Sections 3, 4, 25, 26, and 30. Section 3 prohibits export of antiquities except by the Central Government. Section 4 applies the Customs Act to antiquities, with the proviso that the Antiquities Act prevails in case of inconsistency. Section 25 provides a penalty for export in contravention of Section 3, but expressly states it is 'without prejudice to any confiscation or penalty' under the Customs Act. Section 30 declares that the Antiquities Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. The Court held that the Customs Act is an existing law in force under Section 30, and the principle of ejusdem generis cannot restrict its application. The High Court's view that only confiscation and penalty (as a monetary exaction) are permissible under the Customs Act was erroneous; 'penalty' includes penal consequences after prosecution. The Court also noted that a single transaction can constitute distinct offences under different Acts, and there is no bar under Article 20 or Section 300 CrPC. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Prosecution under Customs Act - Sections 132, 135 Customs Act, 1962 - Export of Antiquities - The issue was whether the Customs Act prosecution is barred by the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The Court held that Section 4 of the Antiquities Act applies the Customs Act to antiquities, and Section 25 provides additional penalty without prejudice to Customs Act proceedings. Section 30 preserves other laws, including the Customs Act. The High Court erred in holding that only confiscation and penalty under Customs Act are permissible; prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 is maintainable. (Paras 1-15) B) Interpretation of Statutes - Ejusdem Generis - Section 30 Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 - The High Court applied ejusdem generis to limit 'any law in force' to laws similar to the Ancient Monuments Acts. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that the Customs Act is a law in force and ejusdem generis cannot be used to narrow the plain meaning. (Paras 14-15) C) Criminal Law - Double Jeopardy - Article 20 Constitution of India - Section 300 CrPC - The Court noted that a single transaction may give rise to distinct offences under different Acts, and prosecution under Customs Act does not violate double jeopardy principles. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 is maintainable for export of antiquities in view of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, particularly Sections 4, 25, and 30.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of Delhi High Court set aside. Trial court directed to proceed with the complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Law Points
- Customs Act
- 1962 applies to export of antiquities
- Antiquities and Art Treasures Act
- 1972 does not bar prosecution under Customs Act
- Section 4 of Antiquities Act saves Customs Act
- Section 25 provides additional penalty
- Section 30 preserves other laws
- ejusdem generis not applicable to restrict 'any law in force'
- double jeopardy not attracted for distinct offences
