(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against her conviction under section 135 of the Customs Act and section 85 of the Gold Control Act.
(2.) THE prosecution case at the trial was that on 24th August 1970 at about 11 -00 A.M. Rasul P.W. 2 and Shantaram P.W. 3 on receiving some information apprehended the petitioner on the Ujjain Railway Station after she had get down from the Bilaspur Indore Express. Her belongings were searched and 25 biscuits of gold were recovered from a suitcase alleged to be belonging to the petitioner. On these facts ultimately the prosecution was launched by the competent authority and the petitioner was convicted under the two provisions mentioned above and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under each count and a fine of Rs. 2000/ -under each count. in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of six months. The sentences were to run concurrently.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that in view of the facts found by the two Courts below it is not possible for him to raise any contention on merits of the matter. But he contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner is a women of elderly age and a patient of heart and had already suffered about a fortnight of imprisonment and she has also been fined Rs.2000/ - under each count, i.e. a total fine of Rs. 4000/ - and the gold has been confiscated and she has also been fined in the departmental proceedings, in view of all these circumstances, the question of petitioner's sentence should be reconsidered. Learned counsel contended that in the situation as the present one the sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice. It was contended that under section 135 of the Customs Act and section 85 of the Gold Control Act the sentence provided is imprisonment upto two years or three years and fine or fine only. He therefore contended that there is no legal impediment in awarding a sentence of fine only in the particular facts of the case.