Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)

The decision in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (AIR 1953 SC 325) remains a significant milestone in the development of the constitutional doctrine of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. This case commentary examines the Supreme Court's interpretation of the expression "prosecuted and punished" and its distinction between administrative proceedings and judicial prosecution. It explores the Court's reasoning that confiscation proceedings conducted by customs authorities do not amount to criminal prosecution and, therefore, do not bar subsequent criminal proceedings for the same act. Adopting a doctrinal approach, the commentary analyses the judgment alongside the relevant constitutional provisions, statutory framework, and later judicial decisions to assess its continuing relevance. While the ruling strengthened the State's authority to pursue both administrative and criminal remedies in cases involving customs violations and economic offences, it also narrowed the scope of the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy. The commentary critically evaluates this restrictive interpretation and considers its implications for balancing effective regulatory enforcement with the protection of individual rights. It concludes that Maqbool Hussain continues to be an influential precedent in Indian constitutional jurisprudence and remains central to understanding the relationship between administrative action and criminal liability in contemporary legal practice.