9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (1) TMI 70 - HC - CustomsUnlawful import of the gold - offences punishable u/s 135(1)(a) and 132 of the Customs Act matter relates to year 1989 - petitioner has already undergone sentence for more than one month Held that - The instant case is of economic offence in the prospective. Therefore while maintaining the conviction the order dated 21.3.2003 is modified to the extent already undergone accordingly he is released on the sentence already undergone. The criminal Revision Petition 1037/2003 is partially allowed as prayed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order convicting petitioner under Customs Act for concealing gold during customs clearance in 1989. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order convicting him under the Customs Act for concealing gold during customs clearance in 1989. The petitioner arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from Singapore and was found with 23 cut pieces of gold in his baggage, valued at Rs.1,15,000. The petitioner failed to produce any lawful import documents for the gold. The petitioner did not dispute the conviction but requested release on the basis of having already undergone more than 22 years and one month. The court acknowledged the minimum one-year imprisonment requirement under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act but considered special reasons for a lesser sentence. The court noted that during 1989, the policy did not permit bringing gold into the country beyond a certain limit. The petitioner's act of concealing gold fell under the category of economic offences, adversely affecting society and economic planning. The court highlighted the impact of economic offences on the country's development efforts and emphasized the need to address such offenses. However, it recognized the changes in policy towards liberalization, globalization, and privatization allowing substantial gold and silver imports under current terms and conditions. Considering the petitioner's 22 years of suffering and previous jail time, the court decided to modify the order to release him on the sentence already served. The court partially allowed the criminal revision petition, maintaining the conviction but ordering the petitioner's release based on time served. The bail bond was discharged, and the order for release was to be communicated to the Jail Superintendent for compliance.
|
