MOHD. ISHRAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 25-2-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2000 by which the appeal has been dismissed and the sentence awarded by the learned Special Judicial 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 origin worth Rs. 1,29,000/- were recovered in the presence of two independent witnesses. The revisionist/accused was apprehended on the spot while another person accompanying him could manage to escape.

(3.) The trial Court proceeded to record the evidence under Section 246 of Cr.P.C. and for that purpose summoned two witnesses recorded under Section 244 of Cr.P.C after giving due opportunity for the cross-examination to the accused persons. Since the prosecution 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(1)(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 fine, an additional period of eight months was ordered to be undergone in detention by the accused.