2008 (7) TMI 427 - HC - Customs

Prosecution - Sentence - conviction and sentence u/s. 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act - quantum of sentence challenged - Held that - This revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants Shaitan Singh and Sawai Singh recorded u/s. 135(1)(i) of the Act by the ACJM (Economic Offences) Jodhpur vide his judgment dt. 3-11-2001 and confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No. 3 Jodhpur vide his judgment dt. 30-7-2007 both are sentenced to one year s imprisonment. However the sentence of fine shall remain intact which the petitioners shall deposit within a period of 15 days from today if not already deposited else they shall serve out the sentence in default of payment of fine. Both the accused as per record are in jail. They shall be released on completion of their term of imprisonment of one year after setting off the period of judicial and police custody as provided for in Section 428 CrPC.

Issues involved:
1. Revision petition against conviction under section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act.
2. Quantum of sentence - minimum period under the proviso to Section 135(1)(i) of the Act.
3. Interpretation of punishment provisions under Section 135(1)(i) for prohibited goods like Silver.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a revision petition challenging the conviction under section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, where the appellants were sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each for possessing contraband silver bars. The police intercepted a vehicle carrying the silver bars, leading to the arrest and subsequent legal proceedings against the accused individuals.

2. The primary argument during the petition revolved around the quantum of sentence. The counsel for the petitioners contended that due to their past credentials and it being their first offense, they should be sentenced to the minimum period as provided under the proviso to Section 135(1)(i) of the Act. The Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the judgments of the lower courts regarding the sentence.

3. In the judgment, the Court analyzed the punishment provisions under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act concerning prohibited goods like silver. The section provides for imprisonment up to seven years and a fine for different categories of goods. In this case, the contraband silver fell under sub-clause (C) of clause (i) of the section, which mandates a minimum imprisonment of one year unless special reasons are recorded for a lesser sentence. The Court noted that neither the trial Court nor the Appellate Court had recorded any special reasons, leading to the decision to sentence the accused to the minimum period of one year's imprisonment.

4. As a result of the analysis, the revision petition was partly allowed. The Court maintained the conviction of the appellants under section 135(1)(i) of the Act but reduced their sentence to one year's imprisonment. The fine imposed was to be deposited within 15 days, and failure to do so would result in serving out the sentence in default of payment. The accused individuals, who were already in jail, were to be released upon completion of the one-year term, accounting for the period of judicial and police custody as per Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal aspects and decision-making process involved in the judgment, focusing on the issues raised during the revision petition.

← Previous Next →