CRR No.2592 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRR No.2592 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.03.2011 Sarwan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Assistant Collector (Customs) Custom Division, Amritsar and another. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.S. Bhllar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab for the State. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). CRR No.2592 of 2010 2 Petitioner – accused has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, as well as the judgement dated 3.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused – revisionist. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Assistant Collector (Customs), Amritsar filed this complaint against the accused/appellant on the ground that on 31.5.1989, Director Revenue Intelligence staff intercepted a car bearing No.PIM 541, at Beas, District Amritsar, alongwith three occupants namely, Sarwan Singh @ Bittu, Ajit Singh and Narinder Singh. The car was thoroughly searched but nothing was recovered from the accused. Sarwan Singh made statement on 31.5.1989 that he alongwith his elder brother Puran Singh, Ajit Singh and Narinder Singh took delivery of 204 gold biscuits from Surjit Singh of village Daleri and concealed the said gold biscuits, which were recovered by the officers of Director Revenue Intelligence. Gold biscuits are of foreign origin values at Rs.76,11,648/-. These were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act and Section 66 of the Gold Control Act. Puran Singh admitted on 1.6.1989 that on 31.5.1989 at 10 AM, he alongwith his younger brother Sarwan Singh, Ajit Singh and Narinder Singh took delivery of 204 gold biscuits from Surjit Singh of village Daleri and concealed the said biscuits in House No.504, Green Avenue, Amritsar, which were to be delivered to one Ajit Singh of Jalandhar. Statement of Sarwan Singh was also recorded on 1.6.1989. Narinder Singh and Ajit Singh have admitted in their statements dated 1.6.1989 having accompanied the abovesaid person CRR No.2592 of 2010 3 and carried gold biscuits to Jalandhar in the manner as stated above by his accomplices. In pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined Buta Singh, Superintendent Customs, Ferozepur as PW1, A.K. Singh, Superintendent, Central Excise, Delhi as PW2, Kewal Krishan, Superintendent Customs, Amritsar as PW3. Thereafter, after hearing the complainant, plaintiff and learned defence counsel, the accused were charged under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In after-charge evidence, all the witnesses were again produced for further cross-examination by the accused. Further cross-examination of all the witnesses was conducted by the accused. But when the complainant failed to examine any other witness despite availing numerous opportunities, therefore, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate closed after- charge evidence of the complainant by order. After the close of evidence of the complainant, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The trial Court found that the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused. Consequently, the trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Learned counsel for the revisionist – accused has submitted that he is not challenging the judgement of conviction and sentence pass by both the Courts below. Further he has contended that since offence is dated 31.5.1989, minimum sentence for an offence under Section 135 of the CRR No.2592 of 2010 4 Customs Act was one year. He has further stated that although, thereafter minimum sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was provided for three years but fact remains that on the date of incident, minimum sentence was one year and petitioner has already undergone sentence for the period of one year 11 months and 9 days. He has stated that in view of the fact that on the date of incident, minimum sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was one year, hence sentence awarded to the revisionist may be reduced for the period already undergone. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 31.5.1989, minimum sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was one year. However, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab as well as counsel for respondent No.1 argued that three years sentence was awarded to the petitioner because on the date of judgement, offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was punishable for a minimum period of three years. I have seriously considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that petitioner is in jail as per the custody certificate w.e.f. 3.8.2010. It is also not disputed that petitioner remained in jail as under trial w.e.f. 3.4.2002 to 24.7.2002. Therefore, as on day, petitioner has undergone sentence for the period of one year 11 months and 9 days. In the opinion of this Court, on the date of incident i.e. 31.5.1989, minimum sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was one year imprisonment. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that petitioner has already undergone sentence for the period of CRR No.2592 of 2010 5 one year 11 months and 9 days and petitioner has deposited fine imposed on him, therefore, keeping in mind that petitioner has faced agony of trial in this case since the year 1989, therefore, sentence imposed on the petitioner should be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Present revision stands disposed of with the modification that sentence imposed on the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Petitioner is in custody. He be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 22.03.2011 sk.