2006 (12) TMI 561 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing u/s 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of the evidence and procedural aspects.
3. Quantum of punishment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Conviction and Sentencing u/s 135 of the Customs Act, 1962

The petitioner was convicted by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad for an offence u/s 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and sentenced to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.), a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default, 6 months of simple imprisonment (S.I.). This conviction and sentence were upheld by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2001.

Issue 2: Validity of the Evidence and Procedural Aspects

The prosecution's case was based on the seizure of 7 silver slabs weighing 219.950 kgs, valued at Rs. 14,73,665, from a specially made cavity in a jeep driven by the accused. The accused's statement u/s 108 of the Customs Act was recorded, where he admitted to transporting the silver for a person named Pravinkumar. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of events, did not investigate the individuals named by the accused, and relied on a statement recorded at an odd hour, which should not be considered voluntary. The defense also highlighted procedural lapses, such as the theft of the bag containing the silver sample and the lack of corroborative evidence.

Issue 3: Quantum of Punishment

The petitioner sought a reduction in the quantum of punishment, citing his poor financial condition, long duration on bail, and the fact that he had already served 16 months and 12 days in jail. The defense referenced several Supreme Court judgments where sentences were reduced due to various mitigating factors. The Court took into consideration the petitioner's socio-economic background, the time elapsed since the incident, and the fact that he had been on bail for approximately 14 years without any further criminal activity. The Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone, while upholding the conviction.

Conclusion:

The Revision Application was allowed to the extent of modifying the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The conviction u/s 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, was upheld, but the quantum of sentence was reduced.