CRR No.971 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.971 of 2003 Date of Decision : 31.01.2011 Prithipal Singh …Petitioner Versus Assistant Collector of Customs, Amritsar …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 135 of the Customs Act for having transported eight gold pieces weighing 378 gms and the petitioner was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment alongwith fine of `5000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the person who was stated to be an expert was not proved to be an expert and thus the prosecution has not proved that what was CRR No.971 of 2003 -2- recovered was actually the gold, therefore, conviction of the petitioner may be set aside. Learned courts below, however, found that before the custom authorities the petitioner had accepted that recovered articles were gold and that such statement of the petitioner was admissible in evidence. In these circumstances, the learned Courts below relied upon the presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act. It is provided under the said section that where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled shall be; on the person from whose possession the goods were seized; if any person, other than the person from whose possession the goods were seized, claims to be the owner thereof, also on such other person; in any other case, on the person, if any, who claims to be the owner of the goods so seized. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to discharge the onus that the articles recovered are not gold and is liable to conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me that the above findings are either patently perverse or even arguable arbitrariness. I find that the petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 05.05.2003, thus, he has now enjoyed almost 8 years of liberty. CRR No.971 of 2003 -3- In the circumstances, the imprisonment of 3 years appears to be too harsh and the same is reduced to 2 years. Let the petitioner be now arrested to serve the remaining part of the sentence of 2 years. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 31, 2011 JUDGE ashish