9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 307 - HC - CustomsSeizure - 204 gold biscuits - The trial Court found that the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused - It is not in dispute that petitioner is in jail as per the custody certificate w.e.f. 3.8.2010. It is also not disputed that petitioner remained in jail as under trial w.e.f. 3.4.2002 to 24.7.2002 - In the opinion of this Court, on the date of incident i.e. 31.5.1989, minimum sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was one year imprisonment - Petitioner be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case
Issues:
1. Revision of judgment of conviction and sentence. 2. Minimum sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act. 3. Reduction of sentence based on time already served. Issue 1: Revision of judgment of conviction and sentence The petitioner, an accused, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to challenge the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge. The case involved the recovery of 204 gold biscuits of foreign origin valued at Rs.76,11,648, leading to charges under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. Issue 2: Minimum sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act The petitioner's counsel argued that since the offense occurred on 31.5.1989, the minimum sentence applicable at that time was one year, even though the minimum sentence was later increased to three years. The respondents acknowledged this fact but contended that the three-year sentence was justified based on the law in effect at the time of the judgment. Issue 3: Reduction of sentence based on time already served Considering the petitioner had already spent one year, 11 months, and 9 days in custody, the court held that the minimum sentence applicable on the date of the offense was one year. Therefore, the court reduced the petitioner's sentence to the time already served, taking into account the lengthy trial process since 1989. The revision was disposed of with the modification that the petitioner should be released immediately if not required in any other case. This judgment highlights the importance of considering the applicable law at the time of the offense, the duration of custody already served, and the principles of justice in determining the appropriate sentence for the accused.
|
