9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 475 - HC - CustomsProsecution - The trial Court had believed the prosecution case and convicted the respondent of the charge under Section 135 of the Customs Act. However, while passing the order of sentence, the trial Court observed that the respondent-accused was a lady and a first offender. She had already remained in custody from 1-3-1990 to 24-3-1990. Therefore, her case was required to be dealt with compassion and mercy. Held that - respondent must have remained under agony of criminal prosecution all these years. Further sentence not imposed as 17 years elapsed.
Issues:
Inadequate sentencing under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The judgment deals with an appeal filed against a lower court's order dated 11-2-1993, which awarded inadequate sentencing to the respondent for an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent was apprehended at a Land Customs Station, found in possession of 14.300 kgs. of silver valued at Rs. 97,669. The trial court convicted the respondent but considered her a first-time offender, sentencing her to the period already spent in custody and a fine of Rs. 2,500. The appellant contended that the sentence was insufficient given the maximum three-year imprisonment under Section 135. The High Court noted that the respondent had already spent about 3 1/2 weeks in custody during the trial, which lasted three years. Considering the time elapsed since the impugned order (more than 17 years), the court expressed reluctance in imposing any further sentence, given the respondent's prolonged exposure to criminal prosecution. The court emphasized that Section 135 does not mandate a minimum sentence, and the respondent had already faced significant distress due to the prolonged legal process. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to sentence the respondent to the period already served in custody and a fine of Rs. 2,500. The court's decision was influenced by the extended duration since the original sentence and the respondent's prior incarceration and the emotional toll of the legal proceedings.
|
