Multiple choice

Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the three alternatives given. Encircle your choice.

A person cannot be punished twice for one offence.

A citizen of India, on arrival at the airport, did not declare that he had brought in gold with him. But on search gold was recovered which he had brought in contravention of law. The customs authorities confiscated the gold under the previsions of the Sea Customs Act. Then he was prosecuted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. He pleads that he has already been punished by the customs authorities by confiscation of gold and the prosecution under FERA is violative of the Fundamental Right which guarantees that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence. Decide.

  1. He would succeed as he has already been punished.

  2. He would not succeed as he was not punished in the first instance by a competent court of law.

  3. Customs authorities should have prosecuted him under the FERA and the Sea Customs Act in one and the same prosecution.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

This question has no correct answer though the closest option is (2), as the decision given there is correct, that the person will not succeed.  The correct reason why this is not a case of double jeopardy is because here two separate sets of facts (through part of the same fact situation) make out two separate prosecutions.

Keep practicing — related questions