2008 (8) TMI 594 - HC - Customs

Revision petition - conviction - offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act 1962 - attempt to export a 300 year old antique idol of Vishnu Held that - No person is entitled to possess any antique of this nature without a registration under Section 14 of the Antiquity and Art Treasures Act 1972. A per Section 3 of the said Act which regulates export trade in antiquities and art treasures it is not lawful for any person other than the Central Government or any authority or agency authorised by the Central Government to export any antiquity or art treasure. Even for carrying on the business of selling or offering for sale of such antiquity one should have a licence as provided under Section 5 of the said Act the case does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court sitting in revision. This revision which is devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to conviction and sentence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The revision petitioner, the 1st accused in the case, contested the conviction and sentence passed against him for attempting to export a 300-year-old antique idol of Vishnu. The DRI officials intercepted the petitioner carrying a cardboard carton at the Calicut Airport, which was found to contain the idol disguised among household utensils. The idol was assessed by archaeological authorities, confirming its antiquity and value. The petitioner's explanation that he was carrying the parcel for his brother-in-law was deemed insufficient. The courts below correctly convicted the petitioner after evaluating the evidence.

Analysis:
The legality of the sentence imposed on the petitioner was also challenged. The petitioner had been in custody for 19 months and argued that he was only carrying the parcel on behalf of his brother-in-law, who resided in Sharjah. However, the court found this defense unconvincing. Possession of such an antique without proper registration and authorization is prohibited under the Antiquity and Art Treasures Act, 1972. Exporting such items without authorization is also illegal. The court upheld the three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, as the petitioner's actions warranted such punishment. The court dismissed the revision, finding it lacking in merit.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing the challenge to conviction and sentence under the Customs Act, 1962, and the subsequent examination of the legality of the imposed sentence in light of the Antiquity and Art Treasures Act, 1972.