2014 (5) TMI 903 - AT - Customs

Quantum of conviction of sentence - Held that - There is no dispute that Section 123 of Customs Act applied to the facts of the case and in view of the relevant provision, punishment as prevailing at that time was a minimum of three years imprisonment. Thus the sentence required to be imposed on the respondent even on plea bargaining in terms of Section 265E(c) was one and a half years imprisonment. The respondent in this trial had remained in custody for a period of 7 months. Thus the learned Trial Court committed serious illegality in sentencing the respondent on the period of imprisonment already undergone when the minimum sentence required to be awarded under Section 265E (c) was 1 year. Consequently the impugned order of the learned ACMM is set aside - Matter remitted to re hear fresh - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of plea bargaining under Section 265B of Cr. P.C.
2. Application of Section 265E(c) of Cr. P.C. in sentencing for smuggling of gold.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the interpretation of plea bargaining under Section 265B of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.). The respondent had moved an application for disposal of the case on pleading guilty, which was initially withdrawn but later reinstated. The petitioner opposed the plea bargaining, leading to a series of legal proceedings. The learned Trial Court ultimately accepted the plea of plea bargaining, which became a point of contention. The petitioner argued that the minimum sentence prescribed for smuggling gold was three years at the relevant time, and as per Section 265E(c) of Cr. P.C., the respondent should have been awarded imprisonment for a period of 1 year. The statement of the officers of the petitioner supported the plea bargaining, indicating no objection if the accused pleaded guilty and received an appropriate sentence.

2. The application of Section 265E(c) of Cr. P.C. in sentencing for smuggling of gold was a crucial issue in the judgment. The Court noted that the minimum punishment for the offense of smuggling gold, as per Section 123 of the Customs Act, was three years of imprisonment. Therefore, even in cases of plea bargaining, the minimum sentence to be imposed on the respondent should have been one and a half years of imprisonment. However, the learned Trial Court sentenced the respondent based on the period of imprisonment already undergone, which was 7 months. This discrepancy led to the Court setting aside the impugned order and directing the learned ACMM to re-hear the parties and decide the matter afresh. The judgment highlights the importance of correctly applying the relevant provisions of law in determining sentencing, especially in cases involving serious offenses like smuggling.

3. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the legal intricacies surrounding plea bargaining and sentencing in cases of smuggling of goods. It underscores the necessity for courts to adhere to the prescribed minimum sentences even in plea bargaining scenarios to ensure justice and deterrence in cases of customs violations. The decision to set aside the previous order and re-hear the matter emphasizes the significance of upholding legal standards and procedures in criminal cases, particularly those involving economic offenses like smuggling.