1978 (10) TMI 52 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the sentence imposed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a Customs Act case.
2. Consideration of confessional statement and evidence in determining guilt under Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act.
3. Evaluation of reasons for imposing a lesser sentence than provided under the statute.
4. Dismissal of the appeal against the conviction based on non-pressing by the respondent's counsel.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an appeal (Crl. R.C. No. 853 of 1973) by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise against the sentence imposed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a Customs Act case. The respondent was found guilty of transporting 'orex' wrist watches, and the trial court sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The appeal sought to enhance the sentence based on the statutory provision mandating imprisonment for a term not less than six months for such offenses.

2. The case revolved around the respondent being caught transporting 'orex' wrist watches, with a confessional statement admitting to the act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate accepted the confessional statement as voluntary and true, leading to a conviction under Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act. The court considered various factors, including the respondent's age and the conduct of the defense, in determining the sentence. The Central Government Prosecutor did not press for the minimum sentence, but the Assistant Collector filed an appeal seeking an enhanced sentence.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the reasons given by the Court for imposing a lesser sentence were not special and adequate as required by the statute. However, the High Court judge, Gokulakrishnan, disagreed and upheld the lower court's decision. The judge found that the reasoning provided by the lower court, considering the respondent's age and circumstances, constituted special and adequate reasons for the lesser sentence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court were confirmed, and the revision to enhance the sentence was dismissed.

4. Additionally, the respondent's counsel endorsed that the appeal against the conviction (Crl. AP. No. 656 of 1976) was not pressed, leading to its dismissal. This decision further solidified the outcome of the case, with no further challenges to the conviction being pursued by the respondent.