TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner Appeals Customs Act Conviction & Sentence, Court Reduces Jail Term</h1> <h3>TARSEM CHAND Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> TARSEM CHAND Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 39 (P & H) Issues:1. Revision against judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act.2. Possession of recovered articles and conscious knowledge by the petitioner.3. Evidence assessment and leniency in sentencing based on circumstances.Analysis:1. The revision was filed to challenge the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, where the petitioner was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of pearls, synthetic stones, diamonds, and foreign whisky, recovered from hand bags and envelopes on his rehri at a railway station. The petitioner admitted to keeping the seized goods for another individual and receiving payment for the same. The prosecution presented multiple witnesses and evidence to support the charges.2. The key issue revolved around whether the petitioner had conscious possession and knowledge of the recovered articles. The defense argued that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the bags/envelopes and was only holding them temporarily for others, claiming innocence. However, the court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the petitioner's actions indicated conscious possession, as he agreed to keep the items for a fee and had knowledge of their contents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the conviction and sentence.3. The court considered the circumstances, including the petitioner being a first-time offender, the time elapsed since the incident in 1988, and the petitioner's socio-economic background, to decide on the appropriate sentence. Despite acknowledging the mitigating factors, the court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from three years to one year and nine months, emphasizing the need for deterrence while balancing the petitioner's personal situation. The court maintained the fine and directed the petitioner to surrender for the revised sentence, highlighting the importance of upholding the law while considering individual circumstances.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
