2016 (10) TMI 378 - HC - Customs

Offence under Section 135 (1)(b) - socio-economic offence - Whether Plea of guilty is voluntary - Petitioner filed an application seeking to avail the benefit of plea bargaining under Section 265(E) Cr.P.C. wherein he admitted his guilt which is a pre-condition for availing the benefit which was not allowed due to the offence being socio-economic and then again filed an application for reviving the application of plea bargaining which was also dismissed and then filed a third application pleading guilty - Held that - considering the special circumstances that the petitioner had faced trial for 20 years, was aged 57 years, suffering from acute financial crisis and his son was hospitalized suffering from Hepatitis C awarded simple imprisonment for a period of six months with the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. which was less than the minimum sentence of one year imprisonment prescribed. Since the petitioner had already undergone more than six months imprisonment he had not to undergo any further sentence - Decided in the favor of the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for plea bargaining under Section 265(E) Cr.P.C.
2. Validity of plea of guilt and sentencing considerations.
3. Revision petition challenging the voluntary nature of the plea.
4. Statutory provisions for sentencing considerations under Section 135(3) of the Customs Act.
5. Judicial review of sentencing factors and voluntariness of plea.

1. Application for Plea Bargaining under Section 265(E) Cr.P.C.: The petitioner sought to avail the benefit of plea bargaining under Section 265(E) Cr.P.C. The initial application was dismissed as the offence was considered socio-economic. Subsequent attempts to revive the plea bargaining application were also unsuccessful.

2. Validity of Plea of Guilt and Sentencing Considerations: The petitioner, after facing trial and framing of charges, filed multiple applications regarding his plea. Eventually, he expressed willingness to plead guilty, which the learned ACMM accepted after personal inquiry. The sentencing judge considered the petitioner's age, financial crisis, and son's illness as special circumstances, awarding a sentence less than the minimum prescribed.

3. Revision Petition Challenging the Voluntary Nature of the Plea: The respondent filed a revision petition challenging the voluntary nature of the guilty plea, arguing that the plea was not voluntary as the petitioner did not admit guilt earlier. The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter for trial.

4. Statutory Provisions for Sentencing Considerations under Section 135(3) of the Customs Act: Section 135(3) of the Customs Act outlines factors not considered as special and adequate reasons for awarding a sentence less than one year. The judge considered the petitioner's age, prolonged trial, financial crisis, and son's illness as valid reasons for a reduced sentence, despite the statutory provisions.

5. Judicial Review of Sentencing Factors and Voluntariness of Plea: The High Court reviewed the sentencing factors and voluntariness of the guilty plea. It found that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in concluding the plea was not voluntary, reinstating the conviction and sentence. The Court emphasized that delayed trials and family medical emergencies are relevant factors in sentencing considerations.

In conclusion, the High Court reinstated the judgment of conviction and sentence, emphasizing the importance of considering individual circumstances in sentencing decisions and ensuring voluntariness in guilty pleas. The Court highlighted the mitigating factors of age, financial crisis, and family medical emergencies as valid reasons for a reduced sentence, despite statutory provisions to the contrary.