High Court revises petitioner's conviction under Customs Act, reduces sentence to time served, upholds fine

The High Court revised the petitioner's conviction under Sections 132 and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, reducing the sentence to the period already served (80 days) due to erroneous imposition of a mandatory one-year sentence. The Court upheld the fine imposed by the trial court, noting that prosecution sanction under Section 137 was not a bar to prosecution. The judgment rectified errors in the lower courts' decisions, ensuring justice in the case.

---

---

Issues: Conviction under Sections 132 and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, sentencing, appeal against conviction, redemption of confiscated goods, detention under COFEPOSA Act, imposition of mandatory sentence, requirement of prosecution sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act.

The judgment pertains to a revision filed against the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 132 and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, resulting in a sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine for the former, and 1 year R.I. and a fine for the latter. The petitioner was found in illegal possession of diamonds valued at Rs. 34,60,000 and charged accordingly. The trial court convicted the petitioner upon admission of guilt, which was upheld in the appeal, leading to the current revision.

The petitioner argued that he had already redeemed the confiscated diamonds by paying a redemption fine and penalty, and had also undergone imprisonment and detention under the COFEPOSA Act. It was contended that the sentence imposed by the lower courts was based on an erroneous understanding that a minimum one-year sentence was mandatory for the offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. Additionally, it was claimed that the prosecution did not obtain the requisite sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act.

The High Court, upon review, found that the lower courts had erred in imposing a mandatory one-year sentence for the offence under Section 135(1)(b) as the provision requiring such a sentence came into force after the date of the offence. The Court also noted that even if prosecution sanction was lacking, the prosecution could have reinitiated the process after obtaining the sanction. In light of these findings, the Court reduced the petitioner's sentence to the period of imprisonment already served (80 days) but confirmed the fine imposed by the trial court.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the Criminal Revision by modifying the sentence of imprisonment while upholding the fine, thereby addressing the errors in the lower courts' judgments and ensuring justice was served in the case.

---