1988 (4) TMI 269 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Sections 135(1)(b)(i) and 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act.
2. Impact of conviction on employment in Canara Bank.
3. Determination of whether the offence involves moral turpitude.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Madras High Court pertains to a revision petition filed by the accused challenging his conviction under Sections 135(1)(b)(i) and 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. The accused was found in possession of foreign electronic items without proper documentation, leading to his conviction and imposition of a fine. The trial court's decision was upheld on appeal, albeit with a reduction in the fine amount.

The key contention raised by the accused's counsel was the impact of the conviction on the accused's employment at Canara Bank. The counsel argued that under the Banking Regulation Act, prohibition of employment applies only in cases of conviction for offences involving moral turpitude. The counsel emphasized that the offence in question did not fall under the category of moral turpitude as defined by the Canara Bank Employees' Service Code.

The court delved into the concept of offences involving moral turpitude, highlighting that such offences bring shame to the individual convicted. It was noted that not all convictions automatically result in disqualification from employment, especially in cases where the offence does not reflect moral turpitude. In this instance, the court found that the accused's possession of electronic items without proper customs clearance did not amount to an offence of moral turpitude.

The judgment emphasized that the mere lack of customs documentation for the electronic items did not constitute an offence that would warrant automatic termination of employment. The court, along with the Public Prosecutor representing the Customs Department, concluded that the specific offences under the Customs Act in this case did not involve moral turpitude. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the conviction did not have implications for the accused's employment at Canara Bank.