(1) THOUGH the learned counsel for the appellants began his arguments challenging the conviction under Section 135(1)(A)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85(1)(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, for having found to be in possession of 600 gold biscuits each weighing 10 tolas, but in view of the findings concurrently arrived at by all the forums, he ultimately submitted only on the question of sentence. Accordingly to the learned counsel, the occurrence itself is of the year 1969, when these accused persons were only 19 and 22 years old. More than three decades have passed in the meantime and the policy of import of gold has been drastically changed. Even the confessional statement indicates that they had kept the gold for getting some commission but were not actually dealing with the smuggled gold and they have been already leading a family life without any further adverse record and therefore the Court should take these mitigating factors into consideration and may reduce the sentence to a substantial fine as has been done by this Court in the case of Rohit Kumar Mehra v. Asstt. Collector, Customs, Ministry of Revenue and K.I. Pavunny v. Asstt. Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate. In Rohit Kumar Mehra case this Court relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in Inder v. State of Maharashtra. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India however submitted that taking into account the amount of gold that was found from the possession of the accused persons and the offence being an economic offence, the accused should be severely dealt with. (2) HAVING applied our mind to the earlier decisions referred to above and the fact and circumstances indicated in the confessional statement which has been the basis of conviction and lapse of 30 years of time, we think the interest of justice will be fully met if instead of directing the appellants to go to jail for serving the balance sentence, we direct that each of them should pay fine of Rs 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh) within four months from today, failing which they will have to undergo the substantive sentence as directed in the impugned judgment. We accordingly so direct. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Writ Petitions (Cri.) Nos. 104 and 105 of 1990. (3) IN view of the judgment of this Court in K.I. Pavunny v. Asstt. We accordingly so direct. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Writ Petitions (Cri.) Nos. 104 and 105 of 1990. (3) IN view of the judgment of this Court in K.I. Pavunny v. Asstt. Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate the question raised in these writ petitions no longer survives. The writ petitions, accordingly, stand dismissed.