2013 (9) TMI 782 - HC - Customs

Conviction u/s 135 of the Customs Act - Held that - The petitioner was facing the agony of trial since the year 1992 and he was simply a carrier and there was no other case pending against him, the prayer of the petitioner was accepted - The Hon ble Apex Court in Jeevraj B. Jain vs Central Excess and Customs Deptt. and another 1999 (2) TMI 625 - SUPREME COURT - the recovery from the present petitioner was 100 gold biscuits of foreign region and the case is of the year 1992 - Accordingly, the request of the petitioner was accepted and the conviction was upheld and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone - However, the sentence of fine was enhanced to Rs. one lac and the same be deposited within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order - The sentence of other accused namely Balkar Singh and Labh Singh was also reduced to the period already undergone subject to deposit of fine Rs. one lac each.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act
2. Appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence
3. Request for reduction of sentence and fine

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 135 of the Customs Act, involving the recovery of 100 gold biscuits of foreign origin from the accused. The prosecution presented evidence of the recovery made during a search operation near the border, leading to the conviction by the trial Court, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the conviction.

2. The petitioner, through his counsel, raised arguments challenging the conviction but ultimately requested a reduction in the sentence. The counsel highlighted the petitioner's first-time offender status, lack of pending cases, and the prolonged trial process since 1992. Various judgments were cited to support the plea for leniency. The respondent's counsel opposed the leniency request based on the seriousness of the offense.

3. After considering the arguments and reviewing the judgments of the lower Courts, the High Court accepted the petitioner's plea for leniency. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's prolonged trial ordeal and reduced the sentence to the period already served. However, the fine amount was increased to Rs. one lac, to be deposited within three months. Similar leniency was extended to the other accused, subject to the timely deposit of the enhanced fine. Failure to deposit the fine within the specified period would result in the restoration of the original sentence for the petitioners.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the revision petition by upholding the conviction but modifying the sentence to reduce the imprisonment period already undergone while increasing the fine amount. The judgment balanced the petitioner's circumstances with the seriousness of the offense, aligning with precedents cited during the proceedings.