2014 (4) TMI 149 - HC - Customs

Reduction of sentence - Conviction u/s 135 of the Customs Act First time offender Bail not misused Confiscation 18 years before - Protracted trial - Already served substantive sentence awarded Meeting ends of justice Imposition of Fine - Held that - Judgments in R.K.Jaleel v. Assistant Collector of Customs & Anr. 2004 (8) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Udai Kant Jha v. Union of India 1999 (12) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA followed - The ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone - The petitioner was a first time offender and there are no other criminal proceedings pending against him - Even the currency and other articles in the nature of Kranti dhotis that were confiscated relate to the year 1996 - Even the concession of bail granted to the petitioner in the year 2003 has not since been mis-used - The petitioner has already faced a protracted trial of more than a decade - He has already undergone a period of two months and eleven days out of the substantive sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded to him - The conviction of the petitioner is upheld and the revision petition to such extent is dismissed - However, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to deposit of fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already deposited - Petitioner, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds - Revision petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act.
2. Quantum of sentence to be imposed.
3. Reduction of sentence based on previous judgments.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with a revision petition challenging the conviction of the petitioner under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The petitioner was found carrying Indian and Pakistani currency along with Kranti dhotis while attempting to cross the border. The trial court had sentenced the petitioner to one year of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine. The appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, leading to the revision petition before the High Court.

2. The issue of the quantum of sentence arose during the hearing. The petitioner's counsel did not contest the conviction but sought leniency in the sentence. It was highlighted that the petitioner was a first-time offender with no other criminal cases pending against him. Moreover, the petitioner had already spent over two months in custody and had been on bail during the revision petition. Considering these factors, the court deliberated on reducing the sentence.

3. In considering the reduction of the sentence, the court referred to previous judgments, including one by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K.Jaleel v. Assistant Collector of Customs & Anr., where the sentence was reduced based on the time already served by the appellant. Another reference was made to the case of Udal Kant Jha v. Union of India, where the sentence was reduced due to the significant time elapsed since the offense. Drawing from these precedents, the High Court upheld the petitioner's conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, subject to the payment of the fine imposed by the trial court.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revision petition to the extent of upholding the conviction but reduced the sentence to the time already served by the petitioner. The petitioner was discharged from the liability of bail bonds, and the judgment was disposed of accordingly.