Crl. Rev. No.834 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.834 of 1996 Date of Decision: 03.03.2010 Satnam Singh & another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Premjit Hundal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar vide Order dated 22.11.1993 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.500/- or in default of fine, the defaulter shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal against the said judgment dated 22.11.1993 was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The judgment dated 22.11.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, as well as, the judgment dated 11.10.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Crl. Rev. No.834 of 1996 2 Judge, Amritsar, have been challenged on various grounds. Firstly, a perusal of the so called statements of both the petitioners do not bear the fact as to why both the petitioners chose to make statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Secondly, the defence plea was that the father of Satnam Singh, petitioner was wanted by the police in a case and their house was raided by the police a number of times. It was further case of the defence that when the police failed to arrest father of Satnam Singh, petitioner, both the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case. Thirdly, the mystery as to whether the alleged recovery was effected by the police or by the Customs Authorities remained a mystery and lastly, the actual arrest of the petitioners was a very important link of the prosecution case which was not proved by the prosecution beyond doubt, but surprisingly the benefit of this lapse was wrongly refused to the petitioners. While convicting the petitioners, the trial Court vide Order dated 22.11.1993, recorded the following findings :- “18. The accused have taken the defence that it was Sawinder Singh, father of accused Satnam Singh, who was wanted by the police and having failed to nab him, the prosecution planted this case falsely on the accused. However, the defence version is without any merit at all and otherwise also, does not pass the test of probability. No agency would falsely involve the wife and children of a culprit, if they are themselves not involved in the crime, especially when the present recovery is in respect of heavy quantity of gold valued at Rs.12,44,705/-. Both the accused made voluntary statements under Section 108 of the Act, Ex.PA and Ex.PB before PW1 Sh. Sharam Singh, Superintendent Customs, who was not present at the time of recovery before whom the accused were produced sometime after the recovery in the Customs House at Amritsar. In these statements, Crl. Rev. No.834 of 1996 3 both the accused have admitted in identical terms that father of accused Satnam Singh used to have contact with one Baj Singh `Jat' of Village Douke, P.S. Gharinda, who used to supply gold biscuits with foreign markings to Sawinder Singh, father of the accused Satnam Singh at Village Teja Chak where the accused reside. They used to bring those biscuits to Chhehartta from where Sawinder Singh and Baj Singh used to take biscuits from them and used to supply them to Kuldip Singh Malha of Mehra caste. Both the accused have also stated that on 01.01.1989 at 5.00 a.m. Sawinder Singh gave 20 gold biscuits to accused Satnam Singh and 15 to accused Veero. While Satnam Singh concealed the biscuits in a `Parna' wrapped round his waist, Veero put them in her purse and they were given direction by Sawinder Singh to take the biscuits to Chhehartta from where he would take them back from the accused. Now, such a statement could not have been concocted by the customs officials and this statement contains facts, which were within the special knowledge of the accused and could be disclosed only by them.” No ground to interfere with the judgment dated 22.11.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, is made out. In view of the voluntary statement made by the petitioners, the non-production of the police record does not affect the credibility of the evidence and statements made by PWs. Sawinder Singh gave 20 gold biscuits to Satnam Singh and 15 gold biscuits to Veero, the present petitioners. The said gold biscuits were duly found in the possession of the petitioners by the Naka party. Thus, the Order of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar vide Order dated 22.11.1993 and the Order in appeal is, accordingly, upheld. Crl. Rev. No.834 of 1996 4 However, the recovery in the present case is of gold. The said gold stands confiscated by the State. The petitioner No.1 is stated to be around 18 years of age, whereas, petitioner No.2, at the time of conviction, is stated to be 50 years of age. This is apparent from para 18 of the judgment of the trial Court. They are facing trial since the year 1993 i.e. for more than 17 years. As per the Custody Certificate, petitioner No.1 has undergone almost three months, whereas, petitioner No.2 has undergone 3 months and 13 days. Taking into account the age of petitioner No.1 i.e. 18 years and petitioner No.2 was a lady of 50 years at the time of conviction, the sword of litigation was hanging on them for the last more than 17 years and were released on bail on 14-11-1996 and 20-11-1996, respectively, it would be very harsh to send them back in the judicial custody after a gap of nearly 14 years. The petitioners have suffered enough and taking into account the item of recovery, the facts and circumstances, the sentence of the petitioners shall now stand reduced to as that of having already undergone. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed except for the modification of the sentence, as above. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 03.03.2010 JUDGE gurpreet