G MOHAN Vs. ASST COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the accused. The accused was found in possession of foreign T. V. , foreign V. C. R. and video camera in his house. When called upon to explain as to how he came into possession of those articles, the accused produced the Customs Clearance Certificate in respect of the T. V. set given by his brother. But, in respect of the other two items (V. C. R. and video camera), his explanation was that they were left by one Karim in his house who was to sell those articles to him upon producing the Customs Clearance Certificate on the next day. Before Karim could come and produce the Customs Clearance Certificate, the articles were seized. The trial Court did not accept the explanation tendered by the accused and convicted him under Section 135 (1) (b) (i) and 135 (1) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act and fined him to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- On appeal, the conviction was confirmed and the amount of fine has been reduced to Rs. 100.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision-petitioner would state that the petitioner has already paid the amount of fine, but that he is only worried about the conviction on the basis of which his services were terminated by the institution in which he was employed. In fact, he produced the order dated 8th November, 1984 passed by his employer, Canara Bank, soon after the order of the trial court. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that as per the Banking regulation Act 1949, CI. 10, prohibition of employment applies only in case of conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, and the offence for which the petitioner stands convicted is not one involving moral turpitude. He would further state before me that in the Canara Bank Employees' service Code, offence which can have implication in the matter of employment is defined as an offence involving moral turpitude, showing thereby that the conviction for other kinds of offences would have no repercussion whatsoever on the employee. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would, therefore, submit that if this Court gives clearly an opinion to the effect that the offence for which the revision petitioner stands convicted does not involve moral turpitude, he would be satisfied and that he would have no grievance against the judgment.

(3.) OFFENCE involving moral turpitude is one which invites shame on the person who became guilty thereof. In fact, in the modern world, there are so many offences, for instance, offences relating to traffic rules, with which any person employes may become guilty of at any time. Therefore, a simple conviction by a Criminal Court would not necessarily entail disqualification to employment in public service or in a bank. That is why, the law-maker has carefully circumscribed the nature of the offence, the conviction therefor would have implication in the matter of employment and the only category of offences are those which invite shame on the person who became guilty, which shame will irradiate on the institution which employs. In this case, the petitioner was not in a position to show the Customs Clearance certificate in respect of two items of articles. The fact of possessing V. C. R. and video camera without the corresponding customs documents is by no stretch of imagination an offence involving moral turpitude and, therefore, no automatic termination of service can take place on the basis of the conviction recorded against the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Customs Department is also of the opinion that the offence under S. 135 (1) (b) (i) and S. 135 (1) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act does not involve moral turpitude in this case. With this observation, the revision petition is dismissed.