9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994 by the petitioner-Department and after conclusion of the enquiry, the respondent was arrested and produced before the Court which granted bail to the respondent. A complaint was filed for the above-mentioned offence against the respondent wherein on 31st March, 2011 the respondent moved an application before the learned Trial Court under Section 265B of Cr. P.C. A further application was filed on 9th May, 2011 by the respondent for disposal of the case on pleading guilty. The petitioner filed response to these applications thus the respondent withdrew the application for pleading guilty. The application under Section 265A of Cr. P.C. was assigned to another Magistrate for disposal. The petitioner opposed the plea of plea bargaining an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made on 27th August, 1994 and at the relevant time Section 135 read as under : "135. Evasion of duty or prohibitions. - (1) without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person - (a) is in relation to any goods in any way knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any prohibition for the time being imposed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force with respect to such goods, or (b) acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he kn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a carrier of goods or otherwise was a secondary party to the commission of the offence; (iv) the age of the accused." 4. 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 requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
