2008 (11) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t for three years and payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved, he preferred appeal as Crl. Appeal No. 241 of 1996 but that was dismissed. Hence this revision. 2. Heard. 3. Following points are raised for consideration :- (1) Whether conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act is legal and proper? (2) Whether sentence is excessive? 4. Perused the records. 5. Case is that revision petitioner along with his wife and child landed at Thiruvananthapuram Air port having come from Zurich, (via) Colombo by Air Lanka flight. He came through counter No. 1 without declaring any dutiable goods or gold and moved out. He was carrying two bags. Customs authorities (PWs 1 and 2) felt suspicious about th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vant for consideration. Ext. P7 is the statement of the revision petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Act. In Ext. P7 it is specifically admitted that the gold bar and gold coin were brought by the revision petitioner to Thiruvananthapuram Air port. Contention as regards Ext. P7 is that it was got recorded under threat. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that challenge to Ext. P7 in that way came only after five months of the incident and hence that contention cannot be accepted. 7. One contention raised by the learned counsel is that the gold bar and gold coin said to be seized as per Ext. P2 are not produced before the Court. But, it is not pointed out that there is any provision in the Act which required the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot produced in court and further, that PW1 was not able to say the market value of gold on the day he was giving evidence but he admitted that there will be fluctuation in the market value. Going by the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, it is seen that much reliance was not placed on the version of PW1 regarding the market value. But the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate thought that it is difficult to think that the value of 531 grams of gold (weight of the gold bar and gold coin together) is less than rupees one lakh as on the date of incident. I am not inclined to think that any such judicial notice could have been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, particularly as there was ....