High Court revises Custom Act conviction, reduces sentence to time served, upholds fine. Bail bonds discharged.

The High Court partly allowed the revision petition, maintaining the conviction under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Custom Act but reducing the sentence to the period already served by the petitioner, which amounted to 34 days of rigorous imprisonment. The fine imposed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court remained unchanged. The petitioner, who was on bail, was not required to surrender, and his bail bonds were discharged.

---

---

Issues: Reduction of Sentence in Criminal Case

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the judgment and order passed by the Special Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellate court had maintained the conviction under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Custom Act, 1962 but reduced the sentence from six months rigorous imprisonment to three months with a fine of Rs. 1,000. The petitioner did not contest the conviction but requested a further reduction in the sentence due to the age of the case and time already spent in custody.

The Superintendent of the Central Excise and Custom Department had filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and another accused under Section 135 of the Custom Act, 1962 for an incident that occurred in 1991. After trial court proceedings, both accused were convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appeal court upheld the conviction, leading to the petitioner's revision petition seeking a reduction in the sentence.

The High Court considered the submissions of both parties, reviewed the judgments of the lower courts, and found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of facts. The court upheld the conviction under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Custom Act and agreed with the lower courts' decisions. However, taking into account the time already spent in custody by the petitioner during investigation, trial, and appeal proceedings, the court decided to reduce the sentence to 34 days rigorous imprisonment, which the petitioner had already served.

In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the revision petition, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The fine imposed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court remained unchanged, and the petitioner, who was on bail, was not required to surrender, with his bail bonds discharged.

---