1987 INSC 0121
                                           Suraj Mal Saraf and Another

                                                           Vs

                                    Assistant Collector of Customs, Amritsar

                                      Criminal Appeal Nos. 231-32 of 1978

                                           (S. Natarajan, V. B. Eradi JJ)

                                                      18.02.1987

                                                     JUDGMENT

S. NATARAJAN, J. -

1. These two appeals by special leave are connected and arise out of the judgment of the High Court
of Punjab and Harayana in Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 1974. The said appeal preferred by the State
against the acquittal of accused 1 and 2, who are the appellants herein, by the Appellate Judge was
allowed and the High Court restored the conviction entered against them by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, of an offence under Section 161(81) of the Sea Customs Act and the sentence of 2 years'
RI awarded therefor.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the judgments of the Appellate Court and the
High Court and relevant portions of the evidence and strenuously argued that the appellants had not
committed any offence under the Sea Customs Act and that the gold seized from them had been
lawfully acquired by them from customers for making gold ornaments and they had been fully
accounted for and as such the High Court ought not to have set aside their acquittal and restored the
conviction entered by the trial magistrate.

3. On bestowing our earnest consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel we find that the
High Court has not exceeded its powers or acted erroneously in any manner in allowing the appeal
against acquittal and restoring the conviction awarded to the appellants by the trial magistrate. The
conviction awarded to the appellants must, therefore, stand and we accordingly confirm the same.

4. In so far as the sentence is concerned the learned counsel for the appellants made fervent
submission for modifying the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the
appellants. It was brought to our notice that appellant Suraj Mal Saraf is aged about 80 years and
appellant Raj Kumar Mehra is aged about 65 years, that both of them are of indifferent health, that
they have undergone the ordeal of the trial and subsequent proceedings for nearly 25 years and as
such the appellants may not be sent back to jail. In the facts and circumstances of the case we feel
persuaded to accept the plea of the appellants and modify the sentence suitably so as to serve the
ends of justice. Accordingly, we modify the sentence awarded to the appellants to the period of
imprisonment already undergone by them and in addition to pay a fine or Rs. 5,000 each in default
to undergo RI for four months, One week's time is given for payment of fine. The appeals will stand
partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

</html