IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 253 of 2000(B) ----------------------------------------------- CRA.400/1993 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.262/1990 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDULLA MOHIYUDDIN S/O MOHAMMED AGED 55 YEARS KALLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE P.O.MALA, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.P.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, AIR CUSTOMS, AIR PORT TRIVANDRUM 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS, ADDL.CGSC PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI SMT.S.AMBIKA DEVI, ADDL.CGSC SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, ADDL.CGSC THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON 28/03/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.253 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March 2008 ORDER Petitioner was tried for offences punishable under Section 132 and 135 (1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The trial court found the petitioner guilty under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellate court, while confirming the order of conviction, modified and deleted the substantive sentence of imprisonment. However, the fine amount was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The said order of the learned Sessions Judge is impugned in this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant/Assistant Collector, Air Customs, Airport, Trivandrum, before the trial court was that the petitioner/accused, on his arrival at the Trivandrum Airport from Abudabi by an Air India Flight on June 30 1990, had given a Crl.R.P.No.253 OF 2000 :: 2 :: declaration that he carried with him goods worth only Rs.1590/- for the purpose of customs clearance. The customs officer had recorded the statement given by the petitioner in the relevant declaration form in which the petitioner had signed. Accepting the declaration, customs clearance was granted to the petitioner. But at the exit gate of the customs import baggage hall, a Customs Intelligent Officer had intercepted the petitioner and on examination of his baggage three gold biscuits and three cut pieces of gold biscuits were recovered from a card board box carried by the petitioner. The total quantity of the gold was found to be 524 gms. which was of 24 carat purity. The value of gold was estimated at Rs.1,62,440/-. It was in the above circumstances the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence mentioned above. 3. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exts.P1 to P10 on its side. PW1 and 2 were examined on the side of the defence. 4. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly established that the petitioner had carried the contraband gold with him in a card board box. The only Crl.R.P.No.253 OF 2000 :: 3 :: contention raised by the petitioner was that the search conducted by the customs officials was not proper and in accordance with the rules or procedure prescribed. It was also contended that the sanction accorded for prosecution was also invalid since the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind properly. The statement of the petitioner recorded by the customs officials under Section 108 was also called in question. 5. But the court below had elaborately dealt with all the above contentions in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence. As rightly noticed by the courts below, the accused had no case that the recovery of the contraband gold was not from his possession. He had only raised some technical objections with regard to the manner in which the recovery was effected and also on other aspects like sanction etc. 6. Having carefully re-evaluated the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge had found that the petitioner/accused was liable to be convicted only under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly the sentence of imprisonment for three years under Section 135(1)(i) was set aside. Petitioner Crl.R.P.No.253 OF 2000 :: 4 :: was convicted and sentenced under Section 135(1)(i) to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Tojan, learned Standing Counsel for the department, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The reasoning and finding of the learned Sessions Judge, in my view, do not call for any interference. Therefore, the revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.R.P.No.253 OF 2000 :: 5 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.253 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 28th March 2008