IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 177 of 2001() ----------------------------------------- CRA.386/1998 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.24/1992 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ ACCUSED ---------------------------- M.O.JOS,. SON OF OUSEPH, MULLAKKAL HOUSE, EDAKALATHUR P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT ----------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,. ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP FOR R1 SRI.K.V.SABU SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC FOR R SRI.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL, ADDL.CGS BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.763/2001 IN CRL.RP. NO.177/2001 DISMISSED 23.06.2008 SD/- A.K.BASHEER , JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.177 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of June 2008 ORDER Petitioner who has been concurrently found guilty and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act has preferred this revision petition. 2. The prosecution case in a nut shell was that the Superintendent attached to Special Customs Preventive Unit, Thrissur and his party had, in the course of a search conducted at the residence and business premises of the petitioner on November 20, 1987, recovered finished and semi finished diamonds of foreign origin valued at Rs.3,81,600/-. The above market value was fixed on the basis of the total carat value of 381.20 as assessed by PW5. It is not necessary to refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution in detail at this stage, since the trial court as well as the appellate court have elaborately dealt with that and Crl.R.P.No.177 OF 2001 :: 2 :: arrived at a concurrent finding that the charge against the petitioner was satisfactorily proved. But still I have perused the depositions of PWs1 to 6 and Exts.P1 to P9 documents produced by the prosecution in support of its case. It is significant to note that in the statement filed by the petitioner under Section 108 of the Act, he had admitted that the finished and semi finished diamonds were recovered from his residence as well as the business premises. Exts.P1 and P3 mahazars prepared at the time of recovery were also pressed into service by the prosecution in support of its case. Similarly, Ext.P7 statement given by the father of the petitioner was also relied on. The evidence of PW1, the Superintendent and PW2, the Inspector who accompanied PW1 had clearly established the search and seizure at the residence and the business premises of the petitioner. PW2 stated that Exts.P1 to P4 were prepared by him in his own hand. He was a signatory to the above documents. PW3, the Appraiser attached to the Customs House, Madras had deposed that he had weighed the diamonds involved in the Crl.R.P.No.177 OF 2001 :: 3 :: case and tested them with the help of magnifying lense and other apparatus to ascertain their quality and purity. Market value was fixed by him keeping in view the above two parameters and also carat weight. PW4, the independent witness, of course did not support the prosecution case. But PW5 in Exts.P2 and P4 certificates stated that he had examined the diamonds involved in the case before issuing the two certificates. PW6 had filed the complaint as authorised. Having gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent finding entered by the courts below. In my view, the sentence imposed on the petitioner also does not call for any interference. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.R.P.No.177 OF 2001 :: 4 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.177 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 23rd June 2008