URMILA AGNIHOTRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A revision petition was filed before this Court against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 12th November, 1991, under Sections 132/135(i)(a) of the Customs Act.By this order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the order of the learned A.C.M.M. by which he convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced her to R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.25,000.00. In appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, the grievance was made by the petitioner that the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration indifferent health and serious ailment of the petitioner while awarding the sentence. The petitioner has placed medical certificate and other related documents before this court also. The petitioner had filed an affidavit before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in which she had stated that her husband is suffering from angina and has undergone surgery in October, 1989. She is also an old women of 61 years of age and never before she has been involved in any other criminal case. In petitioner's revision petition, this court on 25th November, 1991 issued notice and released the petitioner on bail. Notice in the revision was limited to the question of sentence.

(2.) In support of his submissions, Shri K.L. Arora, learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Balraj Singh versus Delhi Administration, 29 (1986) Delhi Law Times 106. In this case, the appellant was convicted for smuggling under Section 132 and 135(i)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. In this case also, the conviction was challenged only on the question of sentence. Against the order of the A.C.M.M., the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi, which was dismissed and against that order, he filed a revision petition before the High Court. That was also dismissed. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the learned A.C.M.M. did not take into consideration the relevant facts which were necessary for deciding the petition on the question of sentene The Supreme Court, while maintaining the conviction and sentence of fine of the petitioner, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to a period already undergone.

(3.) The petitioner also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs versus Mudami Parthasarathy Narayan 1989 (44) Excise Law Times, 437 (Bom.). In this case, the Assistant Collector of Customs had filed an appeal for enhancement of sentence. The Assistant Collector made grievance that the court ought not to have taken such a lenient view in the matter and awarded only one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.75,000.00, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment on each of the charges under Section 135(ia)(i) and 135(ib)(i) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court confirmed the sentence on the accused but penalty of fine was enhanced to Rs. 1 lakh on each of the three counts and in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count.