9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under Sections 132 and 135 (i)(a) of the Customs Act. 2. Validity of the confessional statement made by the accused. 3. Applicability of legal precedents to the case. 4. Consideration of extenuating circumstances for reducing the sentence. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 132 and 135 (i)(a) of the Customs Act for attempting to smuggle 100 gold biscuits with foreign markings, weighing 11.664 Kgs, valued at approximately Rs. 39,85,760. The conviction was based on evidence including the recovery of the contraband at the airport and the confessional statement of the petitioner. The sentencing included imprisonment for six months and a fine under the first count, and two and a half years of imprisonment and a fine under the second count. 2. The petitioner's defense argued against the reliance on the confessional statement, contending that the burden of proving guilt rests on the prosecution. Legal precedents cited by the defense were analyzed by the court, which found them inapplicable to the present case. The court emphasized that the circumstances of the recovery, including the foreign markings on the gold biscuits and the authorized officer's seizure at the airport, provided sufficient evidence to establish the foreign origin of the contraband. 3. The court further distinguished other cases cited by the defense, highlighting the differences in the locations of apprehension and the absence of foreign markings on the seized items in those cases. The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding the foreign origin of the gold biscuits in the present case, based on the evidence presented and the admission made by the petitioner. 4. Regarding the contention for reducing the sentence based on extenuating circumstances such as the petitioner's financial difficulties and personal hardships, the court held that the intentional smuggling of prohibited goods cannot be justified by poverty. Considering the significant value of the contraband and the seriousness of the offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act, the court found the imposed sentence of two and a half years to be appropriate and not excessive. The court emphasized the limited scope for interference in revision proceedings and dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked merit.
|
