1990 (10) TMI 84 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Conviction and sentence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962
Conviction and sentence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Criminal Revision Application challenging a conviction and sentence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Petitioner arrived at Bombay International Airport from Singapore, declared personal items and integrated circuits valued at Rs. 32,000. The Petitioner was arrested, and a criminal complaint was filed against him. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate convicted him under various sections, imposing fines and imprisonment. The Petitioner appealed, leading to a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act but confirmed the conviction under Section 135(1)(a) and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The sentence under Section 5 was reduced to one month. The Petitioner filed a revision application challenging the convictions and sentences. The Petitioner's counsel did not contest the conviction under Section 5 but sought a reduction in the sentence. The main contention was regarding the conviction under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act.

The defense argued that the Prosecution failed to prove fraudulent evasion or duty evasion, as the Petitioner voluntarily declared the integrated circuits. The Prosecution contended that the mere act of bringing the items before the Customs Officer was enough to establish the offense. The judge agreed with the defense, stating that no fraudulent evasion was evident, thus the Petitioner could not be convicted under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. The judge also noted the acquittal under Section 135(1)(b) and did not delve further into it.

Regarding the conviction and sentence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, the defense did not challenge the conviction but sought a reduction in the sentence. The defense highlighted mitigating factors such as it being a first offense, the low value of the contraband, voluntary disclosure, and the time elapsed since the incident. The judge considered these factors and reduced the sentence to one day's simple imprisonment and enhanced the fine. The judgment concluded by setting aside the original sentence under Section 135(1)(a), confirming the conviction under Section 5, and modifying the sentence to one day's imprisonment and a higher fine.