9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee months. Revision petitioner is granted two months time from today to pay the fine. Bail bond is cancelled. - 330 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2008 - Thomas P. Joseph, J. [Order]. - Revision petitioner was charge sheeted by the Assistant Collector of Air Customs for offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act (for short, 'the Act'). He faced trial for the said offences in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam in C.C. No. 58 of 1992. He was found guilty, convicted for the offence under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved, he preferred appeal as Crl. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adictory and cannot be believed. It is also contended that at any rate, there is no proper evaluation of the gold bar and gold coin and therefore, conviction under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act cannot stand. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Assistant Collector v. Ismail [2002 (3) KLT SN 91]. 6. PWs 1 and 2 gave evidence regarding the alleged incident. Ext. P8, statement of wife of revision petitioner, recorded under Section 108 of the Act was not taken into account by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for the reason that the prosecution had no case that she was not available for examination and hence Ext. P8 is not relevant for consideration. Ext. P7 is the statement of the revision petitioner recorded unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... method to ascertain the purity of gold in the gold bar and gold coin. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel and referred supra it was held that touchstone method is not a full proof method to establish the purity of gold. In that view, conviction in that case was converted from Section 135(1)(i) to Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act. In this case, PW1 claimed that he assessed the market value while according to PW2, he did that. Going by the evidence of PW1, he relied on the market value of gold given in newspapers to assess the market value of the gold in question. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate pointed out that those newspapers are not produced in court and further, that PW1 was not able to say the market value of gold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion petitioner is not involved in any other case before or after the incident. Learned counsel brought to my notice decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court where the sentence was modified as one of fine. 11. Question whether sentence is liable to be modified has to be depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Decisions on the point will certainly be a guideline in deciding that issue. I have altered the conviction under Section 135(1)(i) to Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act. Revision petitioner has already undergone detention for nine days. I am not inclined to think that after 17 years, revision petitioner has to be sent to the jail particularly as he is not shown to be involved in any other case before or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
