Supreme Court of India
NEW DELHI: Traversing all three levels of the judicial system and over four decades later, the curtains came down on a smuggling case – illegal import of 777 foreign-made wristwatches – on Feb 23, as Supreme Court held the three accused guilty, but said sending them to jail again would be harsh in view of the case’s years of pendency and their “advanced age”.The case dating back to the pre-economic liberalisation period – when smuggling of foreign electronic goods, particularly from the Gulf countries, was rampant as these weren’t easily available due to licence requirements – was heard by the Bhuj trial court for 18 years, an additional sessions court for two years, Gujarat HC for five years, and finally Supreme Court for 15 years.Closing the 1985 case, pertaining to smuggling of watches of brands such as Seiko, Citizen and Ricoh, Supreme Court let the accused off with the imprisonment undergone, which was around one year.
Israel attacks Iran
The offence they were charged with carried a maximum punishment of five years, but the litigation went on for 41 years.”The surviving appellants are now of advanced age and have undergone a substantial period of incarceration, reportedly around one year, which is more than the statutory minimum sentence of six months contemplated under proviso to Section 135 (1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it then existed,” Supreme Court said. “In this backdrop, considering the totality of circumstances, including the fact that the incident is nearly four decades old, the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellants, the prolonged pendency of proceedings, and the advanced age of the surviving appellants, we are of the considered view that directing the appellants to undergo any further incarceration at this point of time would be unduly harsh and would not subserve the ends of justice,” it said.The court upheld the Gujarat high court order of their conviction, but reduced the sentence of three-year imprisonment given by the HC to jail term already undergone. “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to the term already undergone by the appellants,” it said.The trial took 18 years and the accused were convicted in 2003. Seven years thereafter, HC rejected their appeal and upheld their conviction and sentence of three-year jail term. They moved Supreme Court, which had conducted the first hearing on Feb 14, 2011, and took 15 years to decide the case.”Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find ourselves in agreement with the observations made by HC. The findings of guilt recorded by the trial court, which stand concurrently affirmed by the appellate court as well as HC, do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or manifest error warranting interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution,” Supreme Court said. Go to Source
