9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Conviction and sentence under Section 135 (1) (a) of The Customs Act, 1962, challenge to the impugned judgment, mandatory sanction under Section 157 of The Customs Act, 1962, contradictory statements of accused persons under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962, reduction of substantive sentence for special reasons. For the revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 135 (1) (a) of The Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner argued that obtaining sanction under Section 157 of the Act is mandatory. The petitioner contended that the sanction (EX.PW1/A) for prosecution was not proved by the Officer who granted it (paragraph 3). The petitioner's counsel further argued that the statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 were contradictory, making them unreliable. It was pointed out that one co-accused named the petitioner while the other co-accused did not, leading to a plea for acquittal based on lack of recovery and parity with the acquitted co-accused (paragraph 4). Alternatively, the petitioner's counsel submitted that due to the petitioner's poor financial situation, health issues, and the lengthy duration of the legal proceedings since 1989, there were special and adequate reasons to reduce the substantive sentence. The petitioner had already spent more than six months in jail and was the sole breadwinner for his family (paragraph 5). In response, the respondent's counsel argued that the sanctioning authority did not need to testify in court as the Sanctioning Officer had duly proved the sanction for the petitioner's prosecution. It was contended that the petitioner could not be equated with the acquitted co-accused as their roles were different, and the retraction of the statement under Section 108 of the Act was insignificant due to the recovery of gold (paragraph 6). After considering the arguments and evidence, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions. The deposition of the Seizing Officer was deemed credible, and there were no substantial contradictions in the statements of the accused persons. The Court concluded that the conviction of the petitioner was justified based on the evidence presented (paragraph 7). Regarding the substantive sentence imposed, the Court noted that for special reasons, a sentence of less than one year could be awarded as per the Proviso to Section 135 of The Customs Act, 1962. Taking into account the petitioner's age, family responsibilities, health condition, and the lengthy legal process, the Court found special and adequate reasons to reduce the substantive sentence to the period already served by the petitioner (paragraph 8-9). Ultimately, the petition was partly allowed, and the substantive sentence imposed on the petitioner was reduced to the time already spent in custody, considering the unique circumstances of the case (paragraph 10).
|
