Concurrent findings in revision upheld, but custodial sentence reduced to time already undergone on equitable grounds.

Concurrent findings of guilt were left undisturbed in revision because no illegality or perversity in the trial court and appellate court's conclusions was shown, so interference with the conviction under the Customs Act was refused. However, the sentence was reduced on equitable grounds because the incident was old and the petitioner had already undergone about 34 days' custody, making further imprisonment unnecessary. The appellate sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment was therefore brought down to the period already undergone, while the fine remained intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 required interference in revision and whether the sentence of imprisonment warranted reduction to the period already undergone.

Analysis: The findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and the appellate court were concurrent, and no illegality or perversity in those findings was shown. In such circumstances, interference with the conviction was not justified. On sentence, the incident was old, the petitioner had already undergone custody for about 34 days, and the sentence imposed by the appellate court was three months rigorous imprisonment. Considering the age of the matter and the period already spent in custody, the sentence of imprisonment was found liable to be brought down to the custody already undergone.

Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to 34 days already undergone, with the fine left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact on guilt will not be disturbed in revision in the absence of illegality or perversity, while sentence may be reduced on equitable considerations where the ends of justice so require.

---