114 115 of 1970 From the Judgment and Order dated the 28th November, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision Case Nos.
Respondents are young boys numbermally engaged in agriculture.
The respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
The gold which was of the value of about Rs.
7800/ was already companyfiscated in the proceedings under the Customs Act.
The respondents were also charged under Rules 126P 1 i and 126P 2 ii of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, for failure to make a declaration in respect of the gold found in their possession.
To us they seem to be carriers who were carrying the gold for a small tip but the learned Magistrate believed their defence that they had purchased the gold for the marriage of the sister of one of them.
It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to Punish him.
The appellant, an Assistant Collector of Customs, filed on behalf of the Department a revision application No.
He pleaded guilty at the trial whereupon the learned Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta companyvicted him under section 135, Customs Act, 1962 and under Rules 126 P 1 i and 126 P 2 ii of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
115 of 1970 On June 27, 1968 three bars of foreign gold were found on the ,person of the respondent.
635 of 1969 in the High Court of Calcutta against the judgment of the learned Magistrate.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
It was alleged that the goods were imported into India without the requisite permit and without payment of duty and were therefore liable to companyfiscation under section 111 d of the Customs Act.
Later, it was companyverted into an appeal under section 11 2 of the Probation of Offenders Act, The High Court disposed of three matters by a companymon judgment which is reported in Aravinda Mohan Sinha v. Prohlad Chandra Samanta 1 Two out of these are before us the third, Criminal Appeal No.
Criminal Appeal No.
N. Prasad and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
635 and 636 of 1969.
The respondents did number appear in Cr.
1000/ each with one surety in like amount, undertaking to appear and receive the sentence whenever called upon and to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years.
A. No.
The respondents pleaded guilty to the charges but cited facts in extenuation of the offences.
Raghubar Dayal J. dissented on the point whether the Act companyld be applied to an accused who was companyvicted before it came into force.
quantity, description and other particulars of gold other than ornament , owned by him.
Respondents were charged under section 135, Customs Act, 1962 for being in possession of goods which they had reason to believe to be liable to companyfiscation under section 111 of that Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. These appeals are brought by leave granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Article 134 1 c of the Constitution.
A. 114 115/70 .
114 of 1970 On May 29, 1968 gold bars and sovereigns bearing foreign markings were seized from the respondents by customs officers, Calcutta.
