1986 (11) TMI 65 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality and validity of granting probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
2. Application of Section 140-A of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Consideration of leniency in sentencing due to delay and family circumstances.

Analysis:

1. The respondent was convicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, for storing contraband goods. The Sessions Judge granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which was challenged by the Union of India citing Section 140-A of the Customs Act, which restricts the application of probation provisions to offenders under eighteen years of age. The respondent was not eligible for probation under this provision, and the Sessions Judge was not made aware of this legal aspect, leading to the reversal of the probation order.

2. Section 140-A of the Customs Act, 1962, prohibits the application of probation and similar provisions to offenders convicted under the Act, unless they are under eighteen years of age. The insertion of this section in 1973 made it clear that offenders like the respondent, convicted in 1978, were not entitled to probation benefits. The failure to bring this to the attention of the Sessions Judge resulted in the erroneous grant of probation, which was subsequently reversed by the High Court.

3. The respondent's plea for leniency based on delay in the appeal process and family circumstances was dismissed by the Court. The delay in the appeal process was attributed to the tagging of another related appeal and not due to any fault of the Court. Family circumstances, such as the death of the respondent's brothers, were deemed irrelevant in a case involving smuggling activities that impact the national economy. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the offense and the need for strict sentencing in such cases, rejecting the plea for leniency based on these grounds.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, reversing the probation granted to the respondent and upholding the original conviction and sentence imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The respondent was granted time to surrender, emphasizing the importance of strict sentencing in cases involving offenses against the national economy.