9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. The Assistant Collector, Central Customs Excise, Ajmer filed a complaint against the accused-petitioner under Section 135, Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') and Rule 126P (2) (ii) (iv), Defence of India Rules, 1962 (In short, 'Rules') with the allegations, in short, that the accused-petitioner was found carrying six gold biscuits bearing foreign marking '19990 - The Sheffield Smelting Company Ltd.' on October 30, 1966 while he was travelling in a bus coming from Ahmedabad to Udaipur. The gold biscuits were seized and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was imposed by him vide his order dated August 7, 1967. After framing charges and recording the evidence of the parties, the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under 18 years of age and the accused-petitioner was not admittedly under 18 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence. He further contended that the provisions of this Section would apply in the present case even if the offence was committed prior to the insertion of Section 140-A, Customs Act, 1962 and relied upon State of Punjab v. Meethu Singh, 1988 (3) S.C.C. 607. He lastly contended that no appeal was filed by the accused-petitioner against his said conviction and as such he cannot now challenge his conviction. 5. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further submitted that the provisions of the newly added Section 140-A of the Customs Act would n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Customs Authorities and he also put his signature on it. This statement Ex. P.9 bears the signatures of the accused-petitioner and also of his counsel Shri Ramesh Chand, Advocate. It would be best to quote it extenso. It runs as under :- "The Advocate contended that for one reason or the other his client has been changing his statements. He was working as a Munim with M/s. Tara Chand Inder Mal at Rs. 30/P.M. Then he started working with M/s. Chandhamal Isher Mal at Rs. 50/- P.M. Two years back, he married the daughter of Shri Lachman Singh. Shri Lachman Singh is staying at 373 Bhupalpura, Udaipur. Shri Lachman Singh is working as a gold ornament dealer and also exchanges old currency notes. It is on his advice that Shri Narinder Kum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Prevention of Food Adulteration Act w.e.f. April 1, 1976. In Delhi Municipality v. Man Mohan Lal, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 506 para 3, it has been observed as follows:- "3. We may refer to another decision of this Court in Devji Tandel's case (1982) 2 SCC 222 : (AIR 1982 SC 1029) where the aforesaid right has been reiterated by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to certain observations made by this Court in that case in paragraph 38 and has taken exception to their validity but it is unnecessary for us to deal with that aspect of the matter. The right of the detenu to be represented by a friend, who in truth and substance is not a legal practitioner, cannot be disputed and no reasons were given by the Board why it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act, unless that person is under 18 years of age. 5. It is clear from these provisions that Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not apply to a person convicted of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, unless the person is under 18 years of age. The High Court, however, extended the benefit of the said provisions to the accused since he committed the offence before the said amendment. 6. This is undoubtedly a wrong approach. The question is about the application of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders' Act or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a given ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . P/6 that prior to the occurrence, he similarly brought gold biscuits ten times. 12. Now the question is about quantum of sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has remanded the case for the examination of the accused under Section 248(2), Cr. P.C. This was not necessary as the accused has already been examined by the learned Magistrate on the question of quantum of sentence. The minimum sentence for both the aforesaid offences is six months imprisonment. The occurrence took place in the year, 1966 and the complaint was filed in the year 1976, keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months for each offence would be quite adequate and reasonable. 13. Consequently, the revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
