9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case - CRR No.2592 of 2010 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 22-3-2011 - Mr. Justice Alok Singh, J. Present: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.S. Bhllar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Bhavna Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab for the State. Alok Singh, J (Oral). Petitioner accused has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, as well as the judgement dated 3.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused revisionist. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mined Buta Singh, Superintendent Customs, Ferozepur as PW1, A.K. Singh, Superintendent, Central Excise, Delhi as PW2, Kewal Krishan, Superintendent Customs, Amritsar as PW3. Thereafter, after hearing the complainant, plaintiff and learned defence counsel, the accused were charged under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In after-charge evidence, all the witnesses were again produced for further cross-examination by the accused. Further cross-examination of all the witnesses was conducted by the accused. But when the complainant failed to examine any other witness despite availing numerous opportunities, therefore, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate closed aftercharge evidence of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was one year. However, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab as well as counsel for respondent No.1 argued that three years sentence was awarded to the petitioner because on the date of judgement, offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was punishable for a minimum period of three years. I have seriously considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that petitioner is in jail as per the custody certificate w.e.f. 3.8.2010. It is also not disputed that petitioner remained in jail as under trial w.e.f. 3.4.2002 to 24.7.2002. Therefore, as on day, petitioner has undergone sentence for the period of one year 11 months and 9 days. In the opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
