R.S.Sodhi, J.@mdashCRL.M.A.3340/2004:
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of. 2. CRL.REV.P.222/2004 & CRL.M.A.597/2004:
This petition is directed against the order dated 6.04.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Crl.A.No.50/2002, which appeal arose from the order of conviction dated 7.07.2001 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan
2. Crl.Rev.P.222/2004 Magistrate, whereby the accused has been convicted u/s 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of fine to further undergo one month S.I. u/s 132 of the Customs Act. She was also sentenced to three years R.I. with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of fine to further undergo two months S.I. u/s 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Counsel for the petitioner does not assail the judgment of the Additional Session Judge dated 6.04.2004 on merits . He, however, confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that the petitioner is 76 years of age today and has already deposited the fine of Rs.75,000/-. The gold ornaments valued at Rs.2,70,940/- have also been confiscated. He submits that this is a typical case of an old Indian lady who was caught inadvertently wearing her own personal jewellery. Therefore, there was no criminal intent on her part to cause any loss to the revenue or commit any offence. Therefore, the court should deal with this case leniently. Counsel for the respondent - Customs Department submits that already a leniently view has been shown by the courts below who have imposed the minimum
3. Crl.Rev.P.222/2004 sentence. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties and in view of the peculiar nature of this case where I find that an old lady has crossed the green channel wearing her jewellery which is part of personal wearing apparels, without Realizing that the same had to be declared she has faced a criminal prosecution since 1989 and has also suffered an incarceration of more than a month. She has also had her jewellery confiscated besides having to pay Rs.75,000/- as fine. In the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that this court should consider awarding sentence less than the minimum. 5. Having carefully evaluated the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period already undergone while maintaining the order of conviction and fine. I order accordingly. 6. With this Criminal Revision Petition 222/2004 stands disposed of. Crl.M.A.597/2004 also stands disposed of. the petitioner who is in jail shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. dusty APRIL 19, 2004
