Customs conviction upheld, but mandatory minimum sentence reduced on special and adequate medical reasons.

A conviction under the Customs Act was sustained where seizure of gold biscuits from baggage was supported by the proper officer's evidence, independent witnesses, the search list, the test report, and a statement recorded under section 108; the court held that the statement was not barred by section 25 of the Evidence Act and that the finding of guilt rested on sufficient concurrent factual findings. The court also recognised that the proviso to section 135(1)(i) permits a sentence below the statutory minimum for special and adequate reasons recorded in the judgment, and reduced the custodial sentence to the period already undergone on medical grounds, while enhancing the fine and imposing a default sentence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for offence under the Customs Act was liable to be interfered with. (ii) Whether the sentence of imprisonment could be reduced below the statutory minimum on the basis of special and adequate reasons.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for offence under the Customs Act was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The evidence of the proper officer, supported by independent witnesses, the search list, the test report, and the statement recorded under section 108 established seizure of gold biscuits from the petitioner's baggage. The statement recorded by the Superintendent of Customs was not hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. The finding of guilt under section 135(1)(i) rested on sufficient evidence and was a concurrent finding of fact.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and no interference was called for.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of imprisonment could be reduced below the statutory minimum on the basis of special and adequate reasons.

Analysis: The proviso to section 135(1)(i) permits a sentence below the minimum for special and adequate reasons recorded in the judgment. The medical certificates showed that the petitioner was suffering from serious tuberculous bone disease and required strict bed rest. In these circumstances, the Court found sufficient reasons to reduce the custodial sentence, while also considering the value of the contraband and other relevant factors.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, with enhancement of fine to Rs. 50,000/- and a default sentence.

Final Conclusion: The conviction remained undisturbed, but the custodial sentence was reduced and a higher fine was imposed in lieu of the minimum imprisonment prescribed by law.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may reduce a mandatory minimum sentence below the statutory floor where special and adequate reasons are recorded, and a voluntary statement made to a customs officer is admissible when section 25 of the Evidence Act does not apply.

---