2008 (9) TMI 297 - HC - Customs

Smuggling of gold biscuits - Certainly, if the trial court was entitled to impose sentence less than the minimum prescribed for appropriate reasons to be recorded, the same power could be exercised by the appellate and revisional court as well. In the facts and circumstances stated above and in the light of the illness of the revision petitioner as disclosed by the certificates mentioned above, I am persuaded to think that there are special and adequate reasons to impose sentence of imprisonment less than the minimum prescribed. Considering the value of the gold biscuits seized from the revision petitioner and all other relevant factors discussed above, I am inclined to think that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the revision petitioner is sufficient in the ends of justice, along with a direction of payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-.

Summary

Issues: Conviction legality and excessiveness of sentence.

Analysis:

Conviction Legality:
The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act for carrying contraband gold biscuits. The evidence presented by PW1, the 'proper officer,' along with the search list, test report, and the petitioner's admission under Section 108 of the Customs Act, supported the seizure of the gold. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the petitioner committed the offense. The argument against the conviction was dismissed, stating that the concurrent finding of fact by the lower courts was justified.

Excessiveness of Sentence:
The revision petitioner argued that his sentence was excessive, citing his medical condition of Bone Tuberculosis and the need for complete bed rest. The courts acknowledged his health condition and previous imprisonment but upheld the offense's seriousness under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act, which carries a minimum three-year imprisonment term. The petitioner's plea for a reduced sentence based on his family circumstances and financial hardship was not considered adequate by the lower court. However, the High Court, after reviewing medical certificates from a reputable hospital, found special and adequate reasons to reduce the sentence. The court decided to confine the substantive sentence to the period already served by the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 instead of further imprisonment, considering the value of the seized gold and the petitioner's circumstances.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision in part, modifying the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner and imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 to be paid within two months.