9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gandhi International Airport, Delhi and from the VCP carried by him, 385 gms. of gold was recovered and since co-accused Rajiv Batra had failed to produce the documents regarding import of the said gold, it was seized under Section 110 of The Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, statement of co-accused Rajiv Batra under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 was recorded, in which he had named the petitioner and his co-accused- Rajesh Kumar, which led to initiation of proceedings under The Customs Act, 1962, which had culminated in the conviction of petitioner and same was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. 3. In this revision petition, to assail the impugned conviction of petitioner, learned counsel for petitioner contends that it is mand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is earning his livelihood by working as a van driver at a salary of `4,500/- p.m. and that he has a family to support. It is also submitted that petitioner is a heart patient and is undergoing treatment for it. Thus, it is submitted by petitioner?s counsel that there exists special and adequate reasons to reduce substantive sentence to period already undergone by him and fine imposed stands deposited. 6. To meet the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for respondent contends that the sanctioning authority need not be called into the witness box, as the Sanctioning Officer (PW-1) has duly proved the sanction (Ex. PWA/1) for prosecution of the petitioner in this case. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent that petitioner can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through co-accused Rajesh Kumar, who has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and rightly so, because petitioner cannot be treated at par to accused Rajesh Kumar and so, in the considered opinion of this Court, conviction of petitioner is well merited. 8. As regards substantive sentence imposed upon petitioner is concerned, this Court finds that as per Proviso to Section 135 of The Customs Act, 1962, for special and adequate reasons, substantive sentence of less than one year can be awarded. Appellate Court has not quoted any provision which provides for imposition of minimum sentence of one year and has not taken into consideration that at the time of incident, appellant was twenty three years of age and was married and was having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
