Judge loses job for awarding less than minimum sentence in Customs Case
IN this strange case a Judge lost his job for awarding a sentence less than the minimum prescribed under the Customs Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhuj delivered a judgement in two Customs cases on 22 January 1997 awarding sentence of imprisonment to 12 accused persons. The sentence of imprisonment was less than the minimum stipulated under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Moreover, the sentence of imprisonment was so structured that after allowing the benefit of a set-off, the accused was not required to remain in jail for a further period. The accused were alleged to be involved in the smuggling of 275 silver slabs of a value of Rs. 5,86,50,620/-.
Now the Judge was charge-sheeted alleging that:
1. The judge who was a senior judicial officer was aware of the provisions of Section 135 which prescribe the award of at least a minimum sentence.
2. The case involved smuggling of a huge quantity of contraband articles.
3. The Judge was aware of judicial decisions mandating that a liberal view should not be taken in the award of sentences in such cases. Yet, with the intention of favouring the accused, the Judge awarded less than the minimum sentence without recording special or adequate reasons.
It was charged that:
1. He was guilty of indulging in Corrupt-practice.
2. He was guilty of dereliction in discharging his judicial functions.
3. He acted in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.
After a due process of disciplinary proceedings, the Judge was dismissed from service on 14th July 2009.
The judge approached the High Court which observed:
1. The charge of misconduct in Disciplinary Inquiry was based on evidence and it could not be held that the conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee, which were adopted by the Full Court, were based on no evidence.
2. The Appellant was a judicial officer since 1982, and had worked for nearly fourteen years as a Judge. While dealing with offences under the Customs Act 1962, he was expected to refer to the penal provisions under which punishment was being handed down after recording a conviction.
3. The stand of the Appellant appeared to be that he awarded the sentence without being aware of the statutory provisions.
4. The criminal case with which the Appellant was dealing was not the first case involving an offence under Section 135. That despite the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 135, the Appellant awarded less than the minimum in the case of several accused. No reasons appeared from the judgment for the grant of differential treatment to some of the accused. More significantly, the punishments awarded to all the accused were structured in such a manner that none of the accused would have to serve any further sentence, after accounting for the set-off for the period spent in jail as under- trial prisoner.
5. The punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate to the charge of misconduct which has been found to be established.
The Judge appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the Judge paid no heed whatsoever to the provisions of Section 135. The Supreme Court changed the punishment from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement.