Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 1963

Equivalent citations: AIR 1965 SC 79, 1965 CriLJ 112

Mohinder Singh, who is a jat, had contracted illicit intimacy with one Mst. Puro a
Mazhbi woman who was abandoned by her husband. He used to visit her at her house
and this was resented by the other Mazhbis including some of her relations. These
persons did not object to Mohinder Singh as such but only insisted that he should marry
Mst. Puro and make the connection legal. This Mohinder Singh was unwilling to do,
because he was of a higher status.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on April 12, 1960, in the evening, Mohinder Singh,
riding a mare, was on his way to the locality of the Mazhbis and was accompanied by the
other three original accused who have since been acquitted. On the precincts of the
locality some Mazhbis (Dula Singh, Hazara Singh, Resham Singh, Inder Singh and
Khushia) accosted him. Mohinder Singh challenged them to stop him and drawing a
country-made pistol fired at Dula Singh who dropped down dead. He fired a second shot
at the others, this time wounding Khushia, Inder Singh and Resham Singh. Mohinder
Singh then fired a third shot and wounded two others Sulakhan Singh and Narain Singh
who were not with the first party of the Mazhbis but were immediately behind them.
Thereafter, Mohinder Singh and his companions ran away.
Fir was Lodged and was arrested. He was convicted u/s 302

Madras High Court


M.K. Mohamed Hussain And Anr. vs Central Board Of Excise And ...
on 26 April, 1967

Equivalent citations: 1968 CriLJ 1004

these petitioners had been indulging in the smuggling of Indian currency


to Ceylon. On 21.10.1957, the Postal Appraiser, during the course of
interception of letters at the Foreign Exchange Post-Office, Madurai,
came across seven envelopes all addressed to the business premises of
the petitioners at Colombo. The customs authorities took up further

investigation of the matter and traced the petitioners. The currency was
confiscated, and the petitioners themselves were contacted on their
arrival in India and statements were recorded from them.
separate criminal proceedings were launched against the petitioners
under Section 3(2) read with Section 28 of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act and Section 19 read with Section 167(81) of the Sea
Customs Act. The petitioner in W.P. 2121 of 1965 was discharged. The
petitioner in W.P. 2437 of 1965 was convicted by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tuticorin both under Section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act and Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act.
learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that in the case of the
petitioners in W.P. 2121 of 1965 once the criminal Court had discharged
the petitioner of an offence arising out of the same transaction on the
ground that no prima facie case was made out. the Central Board of
Revenue would be bound to set aside the penalty and that the failure to
do so has rendered the order illegal and void.

It is lastly contended that, once the High Court has acquitted the
petitioner giving him the benefit of doubt, the Central Board of Revenue
ought to have set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise
levying penalty. The High Court Set aside the conviction of the
petitioner
In regard to the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that
there cannot be a second punishment for the same offence, learned
Counsel for the department cited Rangaraja v. State of Madras (1967) 1
Mad LJ 146, at p. 148 : (1968) Lab IC 63 at p. 65 where Kailasam J. has
observed that a departmental enquiry against a Government servant can
be initiated on the basis of certain facts, even though the Government
servant has been acquitted in a criminal prosecution on the same facts.
The learned Judge has also observed:

No doubt it would be a strong predicament, if, in spite of a trial by a


criminal court on the same facts, the domestic tribunal were to coma to a
different conclusion on the fame facts. But there cannot be a complete
prohibition against the Tribunal coming to a different conclusion, for it is
well known that the tribunal is not bound by several rules that are
binding on appreciation of evidence by a criminal Court.