Conviction upheld under Customs Act for dealing with smuggled goods. Minimum sentence imposed.

The court upheld the conviction of both accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act for dealing with goods liable for confiscation. Despite arguments for leniency based on factors like age, health, and economic policies, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offense involving smuggling goods worth Rs. 27 lacs. Considering the lack of special reasons for a lesser sentence, the court imposed the minimum sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000 on each accused, with additional imprisonment in default. The accused were granted three months to surrender and seek recourse in the Supreme Court if desired.

---

---

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act
2. Imposition of minimum sentence
3. Consideration of lapse of time as a special reason for lesser sentence
4. Comparison with previous judgments on sentencing in similar cases
5. Argument for leniency based on economic policies
6. Determination of appropriate sentence

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the conviction of both accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act for dealing with goods liable for confiscation. The trial court's acquittal was reversed, leading to a hearing on the question of sentencing for the accused.

2. Section 135 of the Customs Act mandates a minimum sentence of one year for offenses involving goods exceeding Rs. 1 lac in value, unless special reasons are recorded. The defense argued against imposing the minimum sentence considering factors like advanced age, poor health, penalty, and the 12-year lapse since the incident.

3. The defense relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Inder v. State of Maharashtra and Rohit K. Mehta v. State of Gujarat, to support the contention that the lapse of time can be a special reason for awarding a lesser sentence based on the circumstances of the case.

4. Previous judgments highlighted in the case involved considerations such as the age of the accused, substantial sentences served, and fines imposed. The Supreme Court reduced sentences in some cases based on factors like time lapse and sentence already undergone, which were cited in defense's argument for leniency.

5. The defense argued for leniency based on the liberalization of economic policies. However, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offense involving smuggling goods worth Rs. 27 lacs and the detrimental impact of such activities on legitimate trade and revenue leakage.

6. Ultimately, the court determined that the magnitude of the offense warranted a sentence not less than the minimum prescribed by law. Despite considering some mitigating circumstances, the court found no special or adequate reason to award a lesser sentence. Consequently, each accused was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, with additional imprisonment in default. The accused were given three months to surrender and approach the Supreme Court if desired, with a requirement to furnish surety within 15 days.

---