9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal for enhancement of sentence under Gold (Control) Act and Customs Act, reduction of sentence by Lower Appellate Court, consideration of confessional statement, value of gold seized, appropriate sentence. Analysis: The appeal before the High Court was for the enhancement of the sentence of the respondent who had been convicted under the Gold (Control) Act and the Customs Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had sentenced the respondent to simple imprisonment and fine, which was reduced by the Lower Appellate Court to the period already undergone, citing the lengthy trial period and number of hearings attended by the respondent as a form of punishment. Both parties agreed that the fine had already been deposited by the respondent. The appellant's counsel argued that the reasons for reducing the term of imprisonment were not sustainable, citing a Supreme Court decision that emphasized the seriousness of offences related to possession of gold and the inadequacy of eliminating imprisonment based on factors like confiscation of gold or lengthy trial periods. The confessional statement made by the respondent, admitting to engaging in illegal activities for several years, was highlighted as evidence of guilt. The appellant's counsel also referred to another Supreme Court case to support their argument. In response, the respondent's counsel contended that the fine imposed in departmental proceedings had been reduced significantly, indicating the respondent's role as a mere carrier. However, the High Court noted that the departmental proceedings' outcome was not proven in the present case. The respondent's counsel also argued that the confessional statement was not admitted during the trial and pointed out the respondent's health issues as a factor to consider. After considering the arguments, the High Court found the sentence imposed by the Lower Appellate Court inadequate, especially in light of the confessional statement and the Supreme Court's emphasis on the seriousness of economic destabilization offences. The value of the gold seized was assessed, and the High Court decided to enhance the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three months each under the Gold (Control) Act and the Customs Act. The fine already deposited by the respondent was maintained. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the sentences were enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for three months each, to run consecutively. The respondent was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence, with credit for time spent in custody, and the bail bonds were canceled.
|
