TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... biscuits worth Rs. 25,88,824/- and 3150 US dollars worth Indian Rs. 1,10,720/- were found being concealed by the revision petitioner without disclosure to avoid payment of excise duty and he thereby committed the offence under Section 135(1)(i) of Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Charge was laid against second accused also who allegedly smuggled similar gold biscuits on the previous day. Learned Magistrate discharged second accused under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per order dated 10-2-2003 and framed charge against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 15 exhibits. Petitioner, though ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused, conviction of the revision petitioner is not sustainable. Learned counsel also pointed out that Ext.P6 statement recorded by the Customs Officer under Section 108 of Customs Act reveals that revision petitioner was working as a labourer in Riyad for nine years and he had to maintain his wife and four children including three unmarried daughters and it is because of his financial conditions he had agreed to carry the gold biscuits and the US dollars concealed, so that he could get Rs. 39,000/- as promised and in such circumstances, courts below should have been lenient especially when revision petitioner had undergone preventive detention for a period of one year. Learned counsel submitted that learned Magistrate had appreciated the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reciating the family condition of the revision petitioner reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three years, and in such circumstances there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the sentence. Learned counsel also pointed out that the period revision petitioner had been under preventive detention cannot be allowed to be set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no reason to interfere with the sentence. 5. The judgments of the courts below establish that evidence was properly appreciated. Revision petitioner was admittedly landed in Calicut Airport on 18-1-1996 in flight No. A1-922 from Dubai. Evidence of PW1 the Customs Superintendent and Ext.P6 the statement of the revision petitioner recorded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed by the accused conviction cannot be converted to one under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act, when first respondent did not prefer a revision and this court also did not suo motu register a revision. Therefore conviction of the revision petitioner is to be taken as one under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act. 7. If that be the case, there is no minimum sentence provided for an offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act. The question is, in such circumstance, whether the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge warrants interference. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that revision petitioner has already secured an undeserved modification of conviction by the appellate co....