Delhi District Court
Customs vs . Smt. Ramesh Pawar Page 1 Of 7 on 15 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -01
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Mrs. Harjinder Kaur
Air Customs Officer,
IGI Airport,
New Delhi ..................... Complainant
Versus
Mrs. Ramesh Pawar
w/o Sh. Manoj Pawar,
r/o PW-152A , Pitampura,
Delhi ..................... Accused
Unique Case ID No. 02403R0011321999
CC No. 160/1/99
U/s 132/135(1)(a) of the Customs Act,1962
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a) Sl. No. of the case
02403R0011321999
b) The date of commission of the 21.08.1999
offence
c) Name of the complainant Mrs. Harjinder Kaur
Air Customs Officer,
IGI Airport,
New Delhi
d) Name, parentage & address of Mrs. Ramesh Pawar
accused w/o Sh. Manoj Pawar,
r/o PW-152A , Pitampura,
Delhi
e) Offence Complained of or proved Under Section 132/135(1)(a) of The
Customs Act, 1962
Customs Vs. Smt. Ramesh Pawar Page 1 of 7
f) The plea of the accused and his In her statement under section 313
examination Cr.P.C, the accused admitted that she
arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from
Hong Kong on 21/22 August, 1999,
and total value of the seized mobile
phones and other accessory was only
approximately Rs.3,50,000/-.
g) The Final order Accused Smt. Ramesh Pawar is
Convicted U/s 132/135(1)(a) of The
Customs Act, 1962
h) The date of such order 31.08.2012
Date of institution of case : 17.12.1999
Date of reserving judgment/order : 24.08.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 15.09.2012
BRIEF FACTS OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. Accused Mrs. Ramesh Pawar is facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that on 21.08.1999 the officers of Air Customs recovered and seized mobile phones, head phones with mike, adaptor and textile worth Rs.9.50,000/- (Market value) and Rs.5,28,000/- (International value) which had not been declared by her to the Air Customs Officer and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 132 of The Customs Act, 1962.
2. The accused is further facing trial on the allegations that on the aforesaid date and place she was knowingly concerned in attempt at fraudulent of the prohibition imposed on the import of the seized goods as mentioned above and duty payable thereon and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 135 (1) (a) of The Customs Act, 1962. Customs Vs. Smt. Ramesh Pawar Page 2 of 7
2. The complaint was filed by Mrs. Harjinder Kaur, Air Customs Officer, IGI Airport, New Delhi against the accused on 10.12.1999 upon which the then learned ACMM took cognizance of the offences and accused was summoned.
3. After the pre-charge complainant evidence, the learned predecessor of this Court framed the charge against the accused Mrs. Ramesh Pawar under section 132/135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on 22.07.2002 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The complainant has examined three witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 Smt. Harjinder Kaur, ACO (Complainant), PW-2 Sh. R.K. Chibber and PW-3 Dr. Gautam Sharma.
5. In her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted that she arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from Hong Kong on 21/22 August, 1999 and goods worth value of Rs.3,50,000/- were seized from her but she wanted to pay the duty for the same.
6. I have heard the final arguments and carefully perused the record.
7. As mentioned above, the prosecution in support of its case has examined total three witnesses. PW-1 is the complainant of the case who proved the complaint filed by her as Ex.PW1/A. The sanction and Customs Vs. Smt. Ramesh Pawar Page 3 of 7 authorization for prosecution dated 30.11.1999 as given by Mr.Vijay Zutshi for prosecution of the accused u/s 132 / 135 (1) (a) of The Customs Act, has been proved as Ex.PW1/B. The notice u/s 102 of The Customs Act, 1962 as given by PW-1 to the accused has been proved as Ex.PW1/C and the reply of the accused to the said notice stating that his search could be conducted by any of the Customs Officer has also been proved. The panchnama dated 21-22.08.1999 regarding the seized goods from the accused has been proved as Ex.PW1/D. Some other documents which were also seized for further inquiries have been proved as Ex.PW1/E-1 to Ex.PW1/E-3. Photocopy of the disembarkation card has been proved as Ex.PW1/F. Passenger declaration and passenger manifest have been proved as Ex.PW1/G. The arrest memo of the accused has been proved Ex.PW1/H. The medical examination report has been proved as Ex.PW1/J
8. PW-2 R. K. Chibber deposed that at the relevant time he was posted as ACS Preventive at IGI Airport, New Delhi and he had issued summons Ex.PW2/A dated 22.08.1999 u/s 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 to the accused. In pursuance of the said summons accused tendered his statement on 22.08.1999, which is written in his own hand in Hindi and running into five pages, which has been proved as Ex.PW2/B.
9. PW-3 Dr. Gautam Sharma, Sr. Resident, Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95 deposed that the accused was admitted in his hospital on 23.8.1999 in pursuance of letter Customs Vs. Smt. Ramesh Pawar Page 4 of 7 Ex.PW3/A and was kept under observation in the hospital till 28.8.1999, she was discharged on the same day vide discharge slip which has been proved as Ex.PW3/B.
10. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 21/22.08.1999 the accused arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from Hongkong by flight no. AI-319 after completing immigration and other formalities she opted to walk through green channel along with her baggage consisting of one black colored Ambassador suitcase bearing baggage tag no. AI-754261 carried as check in baggage and one green colour Everlight Creation hand, a Hongkong duty free polythene bag as cabin baggage. On being asked the accused denied to be possessing dutiable items, however, not being satisfied with the reply of the accused, two independent witnesses were called and a notice u/s 102 of Customs Act, 1962 Ex.PW1/C was served thereafter, the baggage tag on her checked in baggage were verified with the baggage claim stub pasted on the ticket of the accused was found to tally. The accused also accepted the ownership of the checked in baggage, i.e. black colour suit case and one polythene bag. As a result of examination of both the checked in baggage 15 Nokia Mobile Phones Model 6910 with batteries, 32 Samsung Mobile Phones Model SGH600 with batteries, 22 Siemens Mobile Phones Model C-25 with batteries,, 1 Samsung Mobile Phone Model SGH-600 without batteries, one Samsung Earphone with mouthpiece mobile phones and one batter for Nokia 6110 Mobile phone were recovered. On demand accused has failed to produce any documentary evidence for the import of the aforesaid good collectively valued at Rs.9.50,000/- (Market value) and Rs. Customs Vs. Smt. Ramesh Pawar Page 5 of 7 5,28,000/- (International value) . The aforesaid goods and other documents were seized by the Customs officer vide Ex.PW1 /D and Ex.PW1/E1 to E3.
10. Nothing substantial has appeared in the testimony of PW-1 to discredit his testimony. The testimony of PW-1 seems reliable and worthy of credence. No circumstances has been shown on record as to why PW-1, a Government Servant, will falsely implicate the accused in the present case. The PW2 also proved a statement Ex.PW2/B given by the accused in his own handwriting under Section 108 of the Customs Act,1962 which in self incriminating and in it the accused has admitted his entire guilt and offence which corroborates the testimony of PW-1 regarding recovery of goods from the person of the accused.
11. The evidence led by complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 21.08.1999 the accused was intercepted by PW-1 after he had completed the customs formalities etc. while he arrived from Hongkong by AI flight no. AI-319, the accused made a false statement in material particulars knowing that his statement was false to the effect that he was carrying nothing contraband on her person or in her baggage whereas she was concealing 15 Nokia Mobile Phones Model 6910 with batteries, 32 Samsung Mobile Phones Model SGH600 with batteries, 22 Siemens Mobile Phones Model C-25 with batteries,, 1 Samsung Mobile Phone Model SGH-600 without batteries, one Samsung Earphone with mouthpiece mobile phones and one batter for Nokia 6110 Mobile phone in her both the baggages in violation of restriction of Customs Vs. Smt. Ramesh Pawar Page 6 of 7 import of foreign goods and the said goods was seized vide panchnama Ex.PW1/D. During arguments also the accused has not disputed the recovery of foreign goods from her and has also not disputed the veracity of the said statement Ex.PW2/B. It is a settled law that the facts admitted need not be proved.
12. In view of the above said discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge against the accused and therefore, the accused Ramesh Pawar is convicted in the present case under Section 132/135(1)(a) of The Customs Act, 1962. Let she be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open court on 15th September, 2012.
(GAUTAM MANAN) ACMM-01: NEW DELHI Customs Vs. Smt. Ramesh Pawar Page 7 of 7 IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -01 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No. 160/1/99 Smt. Harjinder Kaur (Customs) Vs. Mrs. Ramesh Pawar ORDER ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE Present Ms. Pooja Bhaskar, ld. SPP for Complainant department.
Convict in person with ld. counsel Sh. Deepak Kumar. Arguments heard on quantum of sentence and record perused. The convict prays for a lenient view and submits that she remained in J.C. and is facing trial since 1999 and is shameful for her act and will not repeat the offence again.
On the other hand, learned SPP for complainant submits that appropriate punishment as provided in statute be given to the convict.
The Customs Act, 1962 has undergone changes by the amendment Act No. XXII of 2007 for the offence under Section 135(1)(b) of The Customs Act, 1962 no minimum punishment is prescribed and the said offence is punishable for a term, which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. As such by virtue of amendment in the aforesaid Act the harshness of the sentence stands diluted as such the legislative benevolence can be extended to the convicts as per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Superintendent, Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Parash Singh (2008) 13 SCC
499. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 14.10.2011 in Crl. Revision No. 441/2008 in case titled as Sanjay Verma Vs. State.
Customs Vs. Smt. Ramesh Pawar Page 8 of 7
However, keeping in view the nature of offence, I am not inclined to release the convict on probation of good conduct. Convict has already faced trial for 13 years, as such, in view of submissions and period of custody of the convict, interest of justice will be served, if convict is sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by her in J.C. and she is fined of Rs.20,000/- under section 132 and 135 (1) (a) of The Customs Act, 1962 and in default of payment of fine SI for one month. Fine stands paid.
Order accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
GAUTAM MANAN ACMM-01: NEW DELHI 15.09.2012 Customs Vs. Smt. Ramesh Pawar Page 9 of 7