1989 (7) TMI 120 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition against the order of Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act.
2. Determination of accused's age for probation benefits.
3. Applicability of Section 140-A of Customs Act to accused.
4. Proof of offences under Customs Act and Defence of India Rules.
5. Entitlement of accused to benefits under Probation of Offenders Act.
6. Quantum of sentence for accused.

Analysis:

The revision petition was filed against the Additional Sessions Judge's order setting aside the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act granted to the accused-petitioner, who was convicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act and Rule 126P(2)(ii) and (iv) of the Defence of India Rules. The accused was found carrying gold biscuits bearing foreign markings, leading to his conviction and imposition of a penalty. The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the probation benefit and remanded the case for sentencing, challenging the crucial date for determining the accused's age for probation benefits.

The accused's counsel argued that the charges were not proved and questioned the determination of the accused's age for probation benefits. The Additional Advocate General contended that the newly added Section 140-A of the Customs Act applied to the accused, even though the offence predated the insertion of the section. The accused's failure to appeal against his conviction was raised as a bar to challenging the conviction.

The court found that the accused's offences were well proved based on witness statements and the accused's own admission of possession and concealment of the gold biscuits. The court also considered the applicability of Section 140-A of the Customs Act and the accused's entitlement to probation benefits. Relying on precedents, the court held that the accused was not entitled to probation benefits due to the specific provisions of the Customs Act.

Regarding the quantum of sentence, the court noted that the accused had been examined previously on the question of sentence. Considering the circumstances, the court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months for each offence, to run concurrently. Ultimately, the revision petition was dismissed, and the accused's conviction under the Customs Act and Defence of India Rules was upheld, with the specified sentences imposed.