2005 (11) TMI 83 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition against judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, dismissing appeal against conviction and sentence.
2. Prosecution for offences under Customs Act - Sections 132/135(1)(a).
3. Challenge to quantum of sentence based on Section 137 amendment empowering Chief Commissioner to compound offences.
4. Petitioner's plea for sentence reduction due to time served and prior trial history.
5. Comparison with previous cases for sentence reduction.
6. Prosecution's opposition to sentence modification based on delay in trial and petitioner's history as a habitual offender.
7. Court's analysis of delay in trial and petitioner's responsibility.
8. Facts and circumstances of the case including fake travel document and gold smuggling.
9. Trial court's lenient view on sentence and rejection of plea for reduction.
10. Dismissal of revision petition.

The judgment pertains to a revision petition challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, which dismissed the appeal against the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Sections 132/135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The petitioner sought to challenge the quantum of sentence based on an amendment to Section 137 empowering the Chief Commissioner to compound offences. The petitioner argued for sentence reduction due to time served and prior trial history. The court considered previous cases cited by the petitioner for sentence reduction but found them inapplicable to the present case. The prosecution opposed the plea for sentence modification citing delay in trial and the petitioner's history as a habitual offender. The court analyzed the delay in trial, attributing it mostly to the petitioner's actions, and rejected it as a ground for reduction. The court noted the petitioner's use of a fake travel document and involvement in gold smuggling, upholding the trial court's lenient view on the sentence. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, finding no grounds to reduce or modify the sentence imposed.