IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 203 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.280/2005 of VI ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.46/2001 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- V.MAJEED, S/O.UMMER, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, POOLADIKUNNU P.O., ERANJIKKAL, ELATHUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. K.ASOKAN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF AIR CUSTOMS, KARIPUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZE SMT.A.SREEKALA, ADDL.CGSC THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 203 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 12-02-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 46 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently by the courts below for an offence punishable under Section 135 (1) (ii) of the Customs Act , 1962. 2. What has been proved by the prosecution evidence is that on 3-4-1999 at about 10 a.m. P.W.1 the Assistant Commissioner of Air Customs, Karipur on the basis of previous information intercepted the first accused at the Domestic Arrival Hall of the Airport, Karipur. When P.W.1 and his party examined the packet of A1 (Abdulla @ Abdhurahiman), 115 mobile phones together with their re- chargeable batteries sealed in a woolen cloth inside a cardboard carton were revealed. It was further noted that those mobile phones and batteries were got cleared through the green channel without declaring them and without paying the duty on those items. The mobile phones and batteries were seized under a mahazar. The statements of the first accused were recorded under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act. A1 admitted the offence and stated that the mobile phones were meant to be handed over to A2, the revision petitioner herein (Majeed). The statement of the revision petitioner was recorded on the same day. He admitted that the mobile phones were sent to him by the 3rd accused from Dubai. -:2:- 3. Ext.P8 statement was given by the revision petitioner under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act and since it is not a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is not hit by Sec. 162 Cr.P.C. and can be relied on as substantive evidence. In the absence of any of the vitiating circumstances falling under Section 24 of the Evidence Act the conviction was rightly entered against the petitioner. The sentence imposed on the revision petiitoner also cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionately harsh. If at all the courts below have erred that was only on the side of leniency in imposing the fine of Rs. 30,000/-. I see no ground to entertain this petition which is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is given two months time from today to deposit the fine amount failing which he shall suffer the default sentence as imposed by the learned Magistrate. It goes without saying that if the petitioner had deposited any amount by way of cash security while he was enlarged on bail, the same shall be given credit to while insisting on the deposit of the fine amount. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) -:3:- ani.