IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1204 of 2010 RAZI AHMAD S/O LATE MUSHTAQUE AHMAD --- PETITIONER Versus THE UNION OF INDIA. -- OPP. PARTY. ----------- 04 09.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13 th March, 2006, whereby learned trial Court found him guilty under Section 135(1) (b) of the Customs Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years and also imposed a fine with default clause(s). He is also aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2010 passed on his appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 90 of 2006 whereby on a consideration of the materials on record, the appeal was dismissed. As per the prosecution case the petitioner along with another accused was intercepted at the platform no.1 at Patna Junction and found carrying foreign origin cameras in their bag which was contraband goods allegedly smuggled from Nepal. This happened on 13.03.2000. Accordingly they were brought to the custom Office where their persons were searched and in presence of a gazetted officer 20 pieces of KOSSINA CIS Japanese cameras were found valued at Rs. One lac sixty thousand. Accordingly complaint was lodged leading to the aforesaid trial. At the trial 09 witnesses were examined. Different documents were also exhibited. Learned trial Court found that the petitioner’s made interrogatory statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act (Ext.5). The sanction order granted for prosecution in respect of the present case is Exhibit-4. Learned trial Court, on a consideration of the oral evidence read along with Exhibits particularly, Exhibits 5 (Interrogatory statement), 4(Sanction order), 1(seizure memo), 2 (punchnama), and Exhibit 6 certificate of seized goods made in presence of a gazetted officer (Judicial Magistrate) came to the conclusion that the charge(s) have been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Accordingly sentence was recorded. The appeal of the petitioner as noted above failed. Nobody had in fact appeared on behalf of the appellant. The appellant seems to have left making pairvee in the said appeal as a result whereof learned lower appellate Court had to go through the memo of appeal and consider all the issues raised therein in the light of the evidence on record. Learned lower appellate Court rescanned the materials on record in the light of the grounds raised in the memo of appeal and came to the conclusion that the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Court was not fit to be interfered with. Learned lower appellate Court, however, modified the sentence(s). Instead of R.I. for 03 years petitioner was sentenced to R.I. for 02 years. The fine imposed by learned trial Court was also set aside. While assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 13.03.2000. The trial remained pending for six years. For all these years he was made to undergo the agony of trial. According to him, this is a shade of punishment which has to be kept in focus while imposing appropriate sentence for the proven charge(s) It is stated that at the time of recording conviction the petitioner was found closed to 50 years. He is now more than 60 years of age. I have perused the judgments of the two Courts below. The findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below cannot be shown to be perverse and as such this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of guilty recorded by the learned trial Court and duly affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court. One aspect of the matter however, needs consideration. Admittedly the occurrence had taken place on 13.3.2000.The trial consumed more than 06 years. Fighting a criminal litigation for a long period definitely tells upon the mental, economical and psychological condition of the litigant. I find from the impugned judgment and order of conviction that although petitioner was charged with identical allegation earlier but he was ultimately acquitted of the charge(s). Consequently it can be said that he is the first convict. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lesser sentence would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly this Court while upholding the conviction recorded by the learned appellate Court reduces the sentence of R.I. for 02 years to R.I. for 01 year. With this modification in sentence only the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)