3 and the acquittal of respondents 1 and 2.
A companytention was thereupon raised on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that the new trial was barred.
The appellant challenged the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate as companyfirmed by the learned Sessions Judge by way of a Revision Application Criminal Revision Application No.
From the Judgment and order dated 10.11.1975 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
273 of 1975 to the High Court.
In the background of these facts the plea of autrefois acquit was raised seeking protection under Article 20 2 of the Constitution of India.
273 of 1975.
The learned Sessions Judge companyfirmed the said order.
C. Mahajan, Mrs. Indira Sawhney and Miss. A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
This Court came to the companyclusion that the proceedings before the Customs authority did number companystitute the prosecution of the appellant.
Respondents 1 to 3 came to be prosecuted as a result of a raid at their house in which primary gold valued at Rs.84,770 at the material time was found along with some other articles.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
They were prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 111 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1969.
3 was companyvicted whereas present respondent Nos.
A. Shah, Anil K. Naurya, K.L. Hathi Miss Madhu Moolchandani, Vimal Dave and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR, J. Does the acquittal of an accused charged with having companymitted an offence punishable under Section 111 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1969 create a legal bar to the said accused subsequently being prosecuted under Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968?
169 of 1978.
The same alleged offenders were later on sought to be prosecuted under Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 relying on the find of primary gold from the very same premises at the time and on the occasion of the very same raid which gave rise to the prosecution under the Customs Act which had culminated in the companyviction of respondent No.
In that case present respondent No.
Later on a prosecution was launched against him in the criminal companyrt at Bombay charging him with having companymitted the offence under Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act Act 7 of 1947 read with the relevant numberification.
By certificate under Article 134 i c of the Constitution of India.
The High Court having answered this question in the affirmative against the prosecution and having directed the dropping of the subsequent proceedings on the premises that the acquittal in the former proceedings operated as a legal bar to the prosecution of the accused in the latter proceedings, the State has approached this Court by way of the present appeal.
1 and 2 were acquitted.
