9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Magistrate (Economic Offences), Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 69 of 1997 convicting the revisionist/accused under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 sentencing the revisionist/accused to undergo three years' imprisonment and to deposit a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to under eight months additional imprisonment thereof, has been confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30-10-1986, it was learnt from reliable sources that synthetic fabrics of foreign origin were being brought into the territory of India in a vehicle bearing registration No. U.T.C. 4100. The said vehicle was intercepted at Kailash Puri barrier by the officials of the Customs Department and upon search synthetic fabrics of foreign or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n did not want to examine any further evidence under Section 246 of Cr.P.C., the learned magistrate proceeded to record the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Due opportunity for defence evidence was afforded to the accused, who in turn, chose not to give any such evidence in his defence. The learned trial Court heard the arguments of both sides, examined the evidence on record and ultimately finding the accused to be guilty under Section 135(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 delivered the finding to the same effect. He again offered an opportunity to both sides before passing the sentence in question and thereafter imposed the sentence of three years' imprisonment and ten thousand rupees as fine and in default of payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer." Being a special Act, the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 would obviously override the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding seizure and disposal of property seized under the Customs Act. Hence, it is clear that the authority for dealing with seized goods under the Customs Act, 1962 is not vested with the Judicial Magistrate but with the proper officer under the Customs Act. 7. Chapter XIV of the Customs Act, 1962 thereafter proceeds to deal with the confiscation of goods and conveyances and imposition of penalties and this action is not within the jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned counsel for the revisionist that sub-section (2) of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 would apply only to such other class of goods, which the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify. Though, the said notification has not been cited by the learned Courts below but since it is a notification in the Official Gazette, hence judicial notice of the same can be taken. The said notification is Notification Number 9/96-Cus., dated 22-1-1996 in which it is stated that in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and in supersession of the Notification No. 76/F No. 80/83/65-LCI, dated 19-6-1965, published in the Gazette of India vide No. GSR 848, dated 19-6- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said that it was not within the knowledge of the present accused as he was a mere driver of the vehicle. Sub-section (l)(b) of Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 applies to a person who is in any way concerned in carrying of any goods, which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111. Hence, the argument that the revisionist was merely a driver and therefore, is not guilty of under Section 135 of the Act also cannot be said to hold water. 13. No other argument has been raised from the side of the revisionist/accused. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any such illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned courts below so as to hold that the said finding of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. This aspect of the matter has totally escaped the attention of the learned appellate Court. 17. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and confirming the amount of fine imposed by the learned Court below and the period of detention in default of deposit of fine would be proper and would serve the interest of justice. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed and while the conviction of the accused under Section 135(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is upheld, the sentence awarded to the accused is modified to the extent that he shall undergo an imprisonment of six months' rigorous imprisonment with adjustment of the period already undergone in detentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
