TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her two co-accused for an offence under Section 135A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') and he was ordered to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence came to be confirmed by the Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the present applicant being Criminal Appeal No.35 of 1988 vide judgment and order dated 14.06.1990. [2.0] The case of the prosecution was that on 06.02.1983, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Customs Office at Ahmedabad received an intelligence that one white colour Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.MBE 648 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be recorded. The muddamal silver, scooter and car, after drawing appropriate panchnama, came to be seized. After conclusion of investigation, it was found that accused No.3 - Fulchand Chandmal Jain i.e. the present applicant, is the owner of the goods and they connived with each other committing an offence regarding preparation to export the same, and therefore, a complaint came to be filed against all the three accused on 18.04.1984. [2.2] During the course of trial, 7 witnesses have come to be examined on behalf of the prosecution, whereas defence examined nearly 5 witnesses in their defence. After appreciation of evidence and detailed examination of the documents produced and proved, the learned Magistrate convicted all the three a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2008 and thus, Criminal Revision Application preferred by the said accused ultimately stands disposed of. As referred to in the affidavit filed by the Custom Department, which is at page 261 of the present proceedings, it appears that Criminal Revision Application No.192 of 1990 filed by the co-accused - Narendra Kantilal Shah came to be disposed of vide order dated 05.09.1990. Thus, the revision applications by the co-accused were filed and disposed of. [3.0] Mr. Nirupam Nanavati, senior advocate, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Dilip Ahuja, learned advocate for the applicant - accused, at the outset, submitted that since there are concurrent finding of facts of two Courts below, based on evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances, modified the sentence and imposed a punishment of sentence already undergone, which was nearly about 16 months and 12 days out of 03 years awarded for an offence under Section 135 of 'the Act'. [4.0] As against that, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned senior standing counsel for Custom Department as also Ms. C.M.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State submitted that since there are concurrent finding of facts on re-appreciation of evidence also, this revision application may not be entertained. They have further submitted that since in the year 1983 there is a preparation to illegally export the silver approximately of Rs. 20 lakhs, no leniency be shown even in respect of the sentence to the applicant.....