( 1 ) WHAT is the effect of smuggling activity on the national economy and on the common man. Does it not corrode the economy from within and does it not eat into the vitals of the economy? Should the Court not take a stern view and impose severe punishment when- ever an offence of smuggling and other allied offences are proved. This is the question which is required to be answered in this revision application.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the Assistant Collector of Customs Bhavnagar. As per the complaint filed by the Customs Officer a criminal case being Criminal Case No. 3000 of 1982 was filed against respondents Nos. 1 to 7 herein. Respondent No. 7 could not be served before the trial Court and hence the trial against him was separated. The trial pro- ceeded only against original accused Nos. 1 to 6.

( 3 ) IT was alleged that during the night between 18/01/1932 and Jan 19/01/1982 a steam launch called Al-Shamsher was inter- cepted by the officers of the Customs department near Madhwad. Accused No. 1 Ismail Hussain Koreja was the Tindel of the vessel and other accused were the members of the crew. The Customs Officers on search of the vessel found that there were contraband articles. There were about 40 baggages in which such articles were contained. The details of the goods found at the time of the search are noted down in the Panchnama Ex. 23. The goods contained electronic articles such as radio cassette recorders and combined radio combined cassette car radio auto-stop and polyester cloth. It is not necessary to mention all the articles in details inasmuch as there is no dispute about the fact that the articles found at the time of search and seizure were contraband articles and in respect of these articles there was no valid permission obtained by any of the accused for importing the same in this country. The estimated value of the contraband articles as noted in the Panchnama is worth Rs. 20 40 0 (Twenty lacs and Forty thousand ). On this point also there is no dispute. After the search and seizure of the articles in question and after obtaining necessary authorisation as required under the Customs Act a complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhavnagar against all the accused including accused No. 7. In the complaint it was alleged that the accused were guilty of the offences under sec. 135 (2) of the Customs Act and that they were also guilty of the offences under sec. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947 and sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate recorded the evidence at the preliminary stage and thereafter framed charge against the respondents-accused herein for the aforesaid offences. After recording the evidence and after hearing the parties the learned Magistrate found that the accused were guilty of the offences charged against them. The learned Magis- trate after holding each of the accused guilty and after hearing the accused on the question of sentence ordered that all the accused should undergo R. I. for two years for commission of an offence punishable under sec. 135 (2) of the Customs Act. The learned Magistrate however did not think it necessary to impose separate sentence for an offence under sec. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and for an offence under sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He passed the aforesaid order on 16/08/1983

( 5 ) THE Customs department felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and therefore preferred this revision application. It is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the accused is grossly inadequate and the circumstance taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate for not imposing severe punish- ment is not based on evidence. The State Government has also preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1327 of 1983 for enhancement of sentence. However to avoid duplication that appeal is being disposed of separately. In this revision application t