Short Note : 1. In criminal case No. 197 of 1972, the Judicial Magistrate First, Class Sendhawa convicted the applicant under section 85 (ii) of the Gold Control Act, for violating the provisions of section 8 (1) (i) of the said Act, and also under section 135 (b) of the Customs Act, and sentenced him thereunder to suffer R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 3,000 on each Count, in default further R.I. for 6 months, for being found in possession of 121 gold slabs (each weighing to tolas). 2. On an appeal being filed by him the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani, by his judgment dated 28 March, 1977, passed in criminal appeal No. 261 of 1976, maintained the conviction of the applicant for these offences, but reduced the jail sentence to R.I. for 2 years on each Count and also reduced the fine to Rs. 2,000 on each count. The sentences to run consecutively, one after the other. Hence this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that the conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 135 (b) of the Customs Act, and the sentence awarded thereunder is bad in law as the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under section 135 (b) of the Customs Act, except with the previous sanction of the Collector of Customs. Admittedly in the present case no such previous sanction was obtained as contemplated by section 137 (1) of the said Act. It was, therefore, submitted that in absence of such a sanction, the learned Magistrate was not empowered to take cognizance of this offence and consequently the conviction of the applicant under section 135 (b) of the Customs Act and the sentence awarded thereunder is illegal, it being without jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant in fairness conceded that he was unable to support the reasoning adopted by the lower Courts on this point and submitted that in absence of sanction, the conviction of the applicant under section 135 (b) of the Customs Act, and the sentence awarded thereunder cannot be legally maintained, and therefore deserves to be set-aside and quashed. Held : In order to prosecute a person under this section it is necessary to obtain the previous sanction of the Collector of Customs and admittedly the same having not been obtained, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence under section 135 (b) of the said Act. In my opinion, the conviction of and the sentence awarded to the applicant by the trial Court and maintained by the lower appellate Court, cannot be maintained, and are hereby set aside and quashed. 4. Next it was also urged that the applicant was a carrier of the gold and even when in his statement he had disclosed the name of the person from whom the gold was purchased, the customs authorities did not take any further steps in the matter to find out the real culprit and have thus tried to shield the real offender. However section 99 of the Gold Control Act draws a presumption about the ownership of the gold from whose possession it was seized. Therefore, even though the custom, authorities may not have probed into the matter further, though they have stated about the action taken by them still it was for the applicant to adduce the necessary evidence in support of his contention. 5. Lastly, it was urged that considering the facts and circumstance of the case the sentence awarded to the applicant is some what heavy and deserves to be reduced. This prayer was also opposed on behalf of the respondent. As according to the learned counsel the lower appellate Court has already been lenient. Considering the number of gold slabs, and the manner in which they were concealed, at the time of the seizure it is apparent that the applicant had a guilty mind and he had been extra cautious in keeping the gold slabs at such a place so that they may not be easily detected, even through a search of his person was taken. This conduct on the part of the applicant does not show that he was an innocent person and just a carrier, Consequently, I am of opinion that considering the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence awarded to the applicant by the lower appellate Court under section 85 (ii) of the Gold Control Act appears to be quite proper and reasonable and no interference therewith is called for. Revision partly allowed.