9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he first page of the revision petition, the same is filed under Section 130D of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 377(1) of Cr.PC. In the first para of the revision petition, it is filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 377(1) of the Cr.PC. In the additional affidavit dated 11.04.2023, the petition was stated to be filed under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 377 of Cr.PC. Further, on mere perusal of letters dated 16.09.2021 and 08.12.2021 sent by the Superintendent, Customs Division, Imphal to Mr. Th. Sanachouba, learned standing counsel for the customs, the instruction was for filing the appeal. There is total non-application of mind in filing the present revision petition/appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- for wasting valuable time of this Court and public money by filing frivolous petition. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA For the Petitioner : Mr. Th. Sanachouba, Advocate For the Respondents : None appeared JUDGMENT [1] Heard Mr. Th. Sanachouba, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents even after due service. [2] The petitioner (Union of India) through the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Imphal preferred the present revision petition under Section 130D of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 377 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) praying for enhancement of sentence awarded vide the impugned judgment and order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the impugned order dated 02.11.2020 and on the submission of the Ld. SPP for the customs for taking a lenient view and also the learned counsel for the convicts, the Ld. CJM, Chandel sentenced both the respondents/convicts to imprisonment till the rising of the day and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and on default, to undergo imprisonment of 15 days as stated above. Both the convicts deposited the fine amount on the same day. [5] The main ground of revision is that the sentence imposed by the Ld. CJM, Chandel is too lenient and without considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and will serve a bad precedent. While hearing for the admission of the revision petition, vide order dated 18.10.2022, this Court observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 022. On 11.04.2023, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit. On perusal of the additional affidavit dated 11.04.2023 containing 6 (six) pages, explanation was given as to the maintainability of the revision petition for enhancing sentence and nothing is stated regarding the specific instruction as to whether any instruction was given to the Ld. SPP to suggest leniency in sentence. [7] The case was heard on 19.04.2023 for admission. During the admission hearing, Mr. Th. Sanachouba, learned counsel for the Union of India/Customs, relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Alamgir vs. State of Bihar reported as AIR 1959 SC 436 to impress upon the point that the High Court can exercise revisional power t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otal non-application of mind in filing the present revision petition/appeal before this Court. It may be noted that Section 130, 130A and 130D of the Customs Act were repealed with effect from 28.12.2005 by Act 49 of 2005. The present revision/appeal has been filed under the provisions which are no longer in the statute book as on the date of filing, i.e. 29.07.2022. [11] The present petition has been filed against the sentence on the plea that a too lenient view was taken by the Ld. CJM but on plain reading of the impugned order dated 02.11.2020, the leniency was taken by the Ld. CJM, Chandel on the specific submission of the Ld. SPP for the custom. As such, the petitioner has no right to agitate the same before this Court. In the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- for wasting valuable time of this Court and public money by filing frivolous petition. The amount of cost is to be deposited in favour of High Court Legal Services Committee (HCLSC). The cost of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [15] This Court is constrained to express its displeasure in the manner the appeal/revision has been filed in the present case by the Union of India. The revision petition is badly drafted and is not expected from the Union of India. The appeal, which was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be treated as a revision relying on various judgment of the Hon ble Supreme court, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
