9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges under Section 135(l)(a)(i), and Section 135(l)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 2-1-1987 the Accused arrived at the Bombay International Airport accompanied by his wife and son from New York by PAN AM flight. On a search of the baggage carried by the Accused, it was found that the Accused had brought gold valued at Rs. 5,95,200/-. The gold was seized by the Customs under a Panchanama Exhibit P-2. 3. In the Adjudication proceedings the contraband gold brought by the Accused was confiscated by the Customs and a personal penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed on him. The Accused was thereafter prosecuted in the Criminal Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that the contraband was worth approximately Rs. 6,00,000/- which could not be stated to be a meagre amount. Mr. Barday contended that the Accused had been motivated by lust for lucre, and therefore, there was no reason why the Court should show leniency towards him. 8. Mr. Patel has pointed out that the Accused was a family man who was an Engineer by profession and that his wife held a Ph.D. Degree. Mr. Patel further stated that the Accused was not in a position to return to America of which country he was a citizen and that, in India he could not find a job, and therefore, he had been rendered unemployed. Mr. Patel stated that to impose a substantive sentence on the Accused would ruin him completely. He therefore pleaded that me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Patel that to impose a substantive sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment would spell ruin to the Accused. Apart from the fact that the Accused was an educated person, and was gainfully employed in America, the Accused is a family man with a child. From the time when his offence was revealed on 2-1-1987, the Accused has been unable to return to his normal occupation in America and he had not been able to obtain any gainful employment in this country. Considering these facts, we think, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in not imposing the minimum substantive sentence prescribed under the law. We are, however, of the opinion that the sentence of fine imposed appears to be unduly lenient, especially when considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
