9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, Appeal against conviction, Appreciation of evidence, Sentencing, Consideration of passage of time and advanced age in sentencing. Conviction under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962: The appellant, originally accused No. 14, was convicted under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulsar. The High Court affirmed the conviction through a judgment dated 9th March, 1979. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, challenging the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including statements of witnesses and telephone records, and found no infirmity in the appreciation of the prosecution evidence by the lower courts. The Court observed that the conviction of the appellant was unassailable based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable law. Appeal against conviction: The appellant's counsel argued at length, pointing out the lapse of time between the incident in March 1970 and the lodging of the complaint in April 1974. The counsel emphasized that the appellant had been on bail for most of the time since the High Court judgment. Despite acknowledging the potential disturbance to the appellant's family life due to imprisonment after such a long period, the Court considered the gravity of the crime and its impact on society. The Court, therefore, decided to reduce the appellant's substantive sentence from five years of rigorous imprisonment to three years and increased the fine from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 20,000. The appellant was given one week to surrender to his bail, and his bail bonds were canceled. Appreciation of evidence: The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the evidence presented, including statements of witnesses, telephone records, and customs officers' testimonies. The Court noted the caution required while assessing accomplice evidence and the importance of corroboration in material particulars. After considering all the evidence and the summary of circumstances presented in the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court agreed with the lower courts' assessment of the evidence and upheld the conviction of the appellant. Sentencing: In light of the appellant's advanced age and the significant passage of time since the incident, the Supreme Court decided to modify the appellant's sentence. The Court reduced the rigorous imprisonment term from five years to three years and increased the fine substantially from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 20,000. The appellant was given a one-week deadline to surrender to his bail, and failure to pay the fine would result in one year of rigorous imprisonment. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the crime and the need to balance the impact on the appellant's family life with the demands of justice.
|
