Clandestine export of a concealed antiquity upheld as customs offence; three-year rigorous imprisonment left undisturbed.

Clandestine attempted export of a concealed antique idol without declaration or lawful authority was treated as an offence under the Customs Act, 1962, because the evidence showed concealment in a parcel of household articles and an unsatisfactory explanation for carriage. The conviction under section 135(1)(ii) was upheld. The court also found no mitigating circumstance to justify interference with the three-year rigorous imprisonment imposed by the courts below, noting that the custodial period already undergone did not warrant reduction. The revision was dismissed and both conviction and sentence were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's conduct in attempting to export a concealed antique idol attracted liability under section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years called for interference in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's conduct in attempting to export a concealed antique idol attracted liability under section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The revision petitioner was found carrying a carton containing household articles in which a Vishnu idol, later certified as a 17th century antiquity, was concealed. The article was seized along with the shipping bill, and the petitioner's explanation that he was only carrying the parcel for his brother-in-law was found unacceptable. The evidence showed an attempt to export a valuable antiquity without declaration, and the statutory scheme governing antiquities made such export unlawful without the necessary authority and registration.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The petitioner was attempting to surreptitiously export a rare and priceless antiquity of substantial value. The court found no mitigating circumstance warranting reduction of sentence, and held that the custodial period already undergone did not justify interference with the punishment imposed by the courts below.

Conclusion: The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed in its entirety, and the conviction and sentence were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine attempted export of a concealed antiquity without lawful authority constitutes an offence under the Customs Act, and revisionary interference with a lawful sentence is unwarranted absent compelling mitigating circumstances.

---