Statutory minimum sentence under Customs law cannot be reduced on personal hardship where gold smuggling findings remain unchallenged.

A revision against conviction under the Customs Act failed where the recovery of gold, its valuation and the absence of import permission had been accepted by the courts below on official evidence and the accused had not challenged the valuation at trial or in appeal. The Delhi HC held that personal hardship, family circumstances and custody already undergone did not justify a sentence below the statutory minimum for the gold-smuggling offence. As the foundational findings remained intact, no interference with the conviction or sentence was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petition against conviction under the Customs Act and the sentence of imprisonment and fine called for interference, including on the question of reduction of sentence below the statutory minimum.

Analysis: The revision challenged the conviction only marginally, mainly disputing the value of the recovered gold to avoid the minimum sentence under the customs penal provision. The recovery of gold, its valuation, and the absence of permission to import were accepted by the courts below on the basis of official witnesses, documentary material, and the statement recorded under the customs provision. The petitioner had not questioned the value during the trial or appeal. The Court held that the offence was serious and that family circumstances and custody already undergone did not justify sentencing below the minimum prescribed for gold smuggling.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted; the conviction and sentence were upheld and the revision was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The decision confirms that, in a customs offence attracting a statutory minimum sentence, leniency cannot be granted below the minimum merely on personal hardship grounds where the recovery and valuation findings stand unchallenged.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the offence attracts a statutory minimum sentence, personal hardship and similar mitigating considerations cannot justify reduction below that minimum unless the foundational findings are successfully dislodged.

---