9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Conviction under Sections 132/135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, value of gold recovered, challenge to sentence imposed.
Analysis: 1. The revision-petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 132/135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. The petitioner was found carrying gold without permission upon arrival at the airport and failed to produce any import permission for the seized gold. 2. The trial proceeded with witnesses supporting the complaint, charge framing, and cross-examination. The petitioner denied the allegations and claimed innocence. The evidence of witnesses, including the purity certificate of the gold, was examined by the learned ACMM, leading to the conviction based on the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 3. The conviction was upheld in the Court of Sessions, and the sentence was maintained. The petitioner challenged the value of the seized gold at a later stage to avoid the minimum sentence requirement under Section 135 of the Customs Act. However, the courts emphasized the seriousness of the offence and the need for appropriate punishment, rejecting leniency requests based on personal circumstances like family responsibilities. 4. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute the factual findings leading to conviction but questioned the value of the gold seized. The courts reiterated the gravity of Customs Act offences and upheld the sentence imposed, emphasizing that personal circumstances cannot justify a sentence below the statutory minimum. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
|
