9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence. However, petitioner being first offender, belongs to poor family, lenient view taken and sentence reduced from three years to one year and nine months. - 634 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2010 - Jora Singh, J. Shri Parampal Singh, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Karminder Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Tarsem Chand filed this revision to impugn the judgment dated 3-2-2004 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9-11-2000 passed by CJM, Amritsar, was dismissed. 2. As per judgment of conviction and order of sentence, revisionist was convicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act and sentenced to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs. Memo was also signed by Mohd. Akram and Jamsed Ali. Recovered articles were seized under the Act and got tested from Vijay Kumar Seth, who confirmed that seized articles were pearls, synthetic stones and diamonds, worth Rs. 5,14,257/-. Petitioner made a statement on 11-2-1988 and 12-2-1988 under Section 108 of the Act by admitting that recovered bag containing seized goods was kept by Mohd. Akram and Jamsed Ali, with a direction that seized articles were to be handed over to them at the time of departure of train and Mohd. Akram was to pay him Rs. 1500/- for that job. Petitioner agreed to keep the seized articles in his possession and to do the job as assigned to him by Mohd. Akram. Mohd. Akram also admitted on 11-2-1988 that reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leaded to be innocent. 12. Opportunity was given to lead evidence, but no defence was led. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the Customs Department, defence counsel for the petitioner and from the perusal of evidence on file, petitioner was convicted under Section 135 of the Act and sentenced as stated aforesaid. 14. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence by the Court of CJM, Amritsar, appeal was preferred by the petitioner, but the same was ultimately dismissed. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State counsel and gone through the evidence on file. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was carrying on his business on rehri at platform No. 1. He was not in conscious posses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nown to the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner was carrying business on his rehri at platform No. 1. Articles were recovered from the bags/envelopes kept by the petitioner on his rehri. Petitioner was to get Rs.1500/- to hand over the bags/envelopes when Mohd. Akram and Jamsed Ali were to leave the Railway Station. That means, petitioner had the knowledge that there was something in the bags/envelopes, otherwise no question of payment of Rs. 1500/- for keeping the bags/envelopes for a short period till the departure of the train. So, evidence on the file shows that petitioner was in conscious possession of the recovered articles. 19. Admittedly, occurrence was in the month of February, 1988. Petitioner is the first offender and belongs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
