Delhi High Court
Rajiv Batra vs Customs Thr. Shri M.N, Suba Rao, ... on 9 January, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV. P. 1037/2003
% Judgment delivered on: 9th January, 2012
RAJIV BATRA ..... Petitioner
Through: In person.
versus
CUSTOMS THR. SHRI M.N, SUBA RAO, A.C.O. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Bhaskar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the
impugned order dated 18th December, 2003 whereby the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, New Delhi has dismissed the appeal against the
judgment and order dated 5.03.2003 and 21.3.2003 respectively
whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 135(1)(a) and 132 of the Customs Act.
2. The facts in brief of the case are that on 18.7.1989, the petitioner
arrived at the IGI Airport, New Delhi from Singapore via Bangkok,
Japan Airline JL-491 on 18.7.1989 and reported for customs clearance
on Red Channel Counter. He declared goods worth Rs.4,000/- and
deposited the customs due. As he was leaving the arrival hall, he was
intercepted near the Custom exit and asked by the Air Custom Officers
whether he was carrying contraband. On repeated asking, the petitioner
continued answering in negative. He was then taken to adjacent room
for his personal search. His baggage was examined. On screening
machine, concealment of some high density metal in the VCP was
suspected. Thereafter the VCP was opened with the help of a screw
driver and 23 cut pieces of gold of different sizes were found in the
ROTO portion of the VCP. A Goldsmith certified that the pieces were
of 24 carat purity quality collectively weighing 385 gm valued at
Rs.1,15,000/- (worth Rs.73,150/- in the international market). The
petitioner failed to produce any document for lawful import of the gold
recovered.
3. The petitioner is present in person who is not disputing the
conviction order. He is only praying that the instant case pertains to the
year 1989, therefore, he has already suffered for more than 22 years
and he has already undergone more than one month. Therefore, he has
prayed that while maintaining the conviction, he should be released on
sentence already undergone.
4. I am conscious that under the provisions of Sec. 135 of the
Customs Act, the minimum sentence of imprisonment cannot be less
than one year. However, I am also conscious that for special and
adequate reasons, the sentence of the imprisonment can be less than
one year.
5. In the instant case, the petitioner has brought gold by concealing
in VCP and did not declare the gold. Presently, as per the customs
policy 5Kg gold and 50 Kg silver can be imported subject to the
payment of the customs duty.
6. During the period 1989, the policy of the country was not so
liberalized and therefore, it was not permitted to bring gold in this
country. The passengers were used to bring the gold by so many
methods. The case of the petitioner also falls in that category.
7. The instant case is of economic offence in the prospective. It is
the society at large which is adversely affected by such an offence. The
economic offences defeat the economic planning. The country which
has not been able to overcome the label or underdeveloped or
developing country despite the efforts made by the Government all
these years cannot forego or ignore such offences.
8. This country has now brought liberalization, globalization and
privatisation, therefore, presently one can bring the gold and silver in a
substantial quantity, subject to terms and conditions.
9. In the present case, the appellant has suffered more than 22
years. This is the third round of the litigation. He has already
undergone more than one month in the jail, therefore, in the
circumstances, I deem it appropriate that while maintaining the
conviction, the order dated 21.3.2003 is modified to the extent already
undergone, accordingly he is released on the sentence already
undergone. The bail bond of the petitioner is discharged. The order of
this court be sent to the Jail Superintendent for compliance.
10. The criminal Revision Petition 1037/2003 is partially allowed,
as prayed.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 09, 2012
'raj'
