Customs Act Conviction Upheld, Sentence Revised for Age & Role

The High Court upheld the conviction of two accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act but dismissed the appeal by the Customs Department, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to convict co-accused solely based on statements of carriers. The court revised the sentence due to the case's age (over 21 years) and the accused's role, reducing imprisonment to time served but increasing the fine to Rs. 2,00,000 each. Failure to pay within two months would result in serving the remaining sentence, striking a balance between punishment and circumstances.

---

---

Issues:
1. Conviction and sentencing of accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Admissibility and weight of co-accused statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
3. Revision of sentence based on the age of the case and role of the accused as carriers.

Issue 1: Conviction and Sentencing under Section 135 of the Customs Act:
The case involved two accused, Ajit Pal Singh Sethi and Daljit Singh, who were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for a case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution's case detailed the recovery of 728 gold biscuits valued at Rs. 3,65,00,464 from a jeep intercepted by officials. Statements of the accused admitted their involvement in transporting the gold. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, a decision upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the Customs Department, finding no merit in convicting other co-accused based solely on the uncorroborated statements of these accused carriers.

Issue 2: Admissibility of Co-Accused Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The trial court's judgment was based on the statements of the co-accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act. However, the High Court emphasized that such statements are considered weak evidence and cannot solely lead to the conviction of other co-accused. The court cited precedents to support this position, highlighting the need for corroborative evidence to establish guilt. The defense counsel for the acquitted co-accused supported the trial court's decision, and the High Court upheld the acquittal based on the lack of corroborative evidence against them.

Issue 3: Revision of Sentence based on Case Age and Role as Carriers:
In the criminal revision petition, the accused did not challenge their conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The High Court affirmed the conviction and focused on revising the sentence. Considering the age of the case (more than 21 years) and the accused's role as carriers, the court reduced the sentence to the period already served in custody. The fine imposed by the trial court was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 each, to be paid within two months. Failure to pay would result in serving the remaining part of the sentence. The court referenced a previous case to justify the revised sentence, emphasizing the need for a balance between punishment and the circumstances of the accused.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the court's reasoning, and the final decisions made by the High Court in the case.

---