1991 (7) TMI 90 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act
2. Entitlement to set off under Sec. 428 of the Cr. P.C.

Analysis:
1. The revision petitioners were charged under Section 135(l)(i) of the Customs Act and Sec. 85(l)(a) of the Gold (Control) Act. They were found guilty by the trial Court, convicted, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offense, along with a fine. The appeal to the Sessions Court was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence.

2. The main issue in this revision was whether the revision petitioners were entitled to set off under Sec. 428 of the Cr. P.C. for the period they were detained under COFEPOSA. The revision petitioners were detained in the Central Prison from 19-6-1984 to 19-6-1985 during the investigation of the customs case. The defense argued that this period of detention should be considered for set off. The prosecution contended that the period under COFEPOSA cannot be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed.

3. The Court considered the provisions of Sec. 428 of the Cr. P.C., which allow for the set off of the period of detention undergone during investigation, inquiry, or trial before conviction. As the revision petitioners were under detention during the investigation period of the customs case, the Court held that they were entitled to set off for the period 19-6-1984 to 19-6-1985. This decision was based on the fact that the revision petitioners were arrested on 5-5-1984 and were under detention during the investigation period.

4. The Court referred to a letter from the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate confirming that the revision petitioners were undertrial prisoners during their detention under COFEPOSA. The defense also relied on a previous decision of the Court where a similar request for set off was allowed. The Central Govt. Pleader argued against allowing the set off for the period of detention under COFEPOSA.

5. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition but held that the revision petitioners were entitled to set off for the period 19-6-1984 to 19-6-1985. The decision was based on the provisions of Sec. 428 of the Cr. P.C. and the circumstances of the case where the revision petitioners were under detention during the investigation period of the customs case.