and could not be charged with it before the Collector of Customs. It is an offence separate from the crime which it may have for its object and is complete even before the crime is attempted or completed, and even when attempted or completed; it forms no ingredients of such crime. They are, therefore, quite separate offences. The Court relied on the view expressed by the United States, Supreme Court in United States v. Rabinowith (1915) 238 US 78. In The State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte (1961) 3 SCR 107, this Court laid down the law stating that if the offences were distinct there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy as embodied in Article 20(2) of the Constitution being applicable.It was the case where the accused were sought to be punished for the offence under Section 105, Insurance Act, after their trial and conviction for the offence under Section 409, Penal Code, this Court held that they were not sought to be punished for the same offence twice but for two distinct offences constituted or made up of different ingredients and therefore the bar of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 26 of the General Clause Act, 1897, was not applicable. This Court made it clear that the emphasis is not on the facts "alleged in the two complaints but rather on the ingredients which constitute the two offences with which a person is charged." The ratio of the case is apparent from the following:
