JUDGMENT The petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, legality and propriety of the order which has been passed by the Special Court, Indore, in the matter of criminal case No. 4565/82 wherein the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under the provisions of section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for convenience) and has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, S.I. for one month. The prosecution case in brief is that on 2.2.80 officers of Central Excise and Customs department, head-quarters at Indore, raided the shop of the petitioner. (The order of conviction and sentence has been passed in the matter of prosecution which was connected with the petitioner's father's wrist watch shop which was raided by the officers of the Central Excise and Customs department). The petitioner's father was running a shop in the style of M/s Singh Watch Co. 5, Gopal Mandir Chowk, Ujjain. In the raid they seized 47 wrist watches, 16 wrist watch's movements and one time piece manufactured in foreign countries. Those articles were worth Rs. 6,775 and they were the notified articles under the provisions of chapter 1(1) of the Act. When the petitioner was unable to produce the bitt and vouchers for the said goods, the officers of the raiding party decided to prosecute him. The complaint was lodged in the said Court after obtaining the sanction from the sanctioning authority. The evidence was recorded by the said Court and after accepting the evidence on record the learned trial Court held that the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under section 135 of the Customs Act and therefore the order of conviction and sentence was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against it in the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the Criminal appeal No. 32/92, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and being aggrieved by that the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Shri Gangrade, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had committed the error of accepting the prosecution case holding the petitioner guilty and having the possession of those notified articles when the said shop was belonging to the father of the petitioner and was in possession of the father of the petitioner. Shri Gangrade, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had committed the error of accepting the prosecution case holding the petitioner guilty and having the possession of those notified articles when the said shop was belonging to the father of the petitioner and was in possession of the father of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was temporarily present in the said shop at that time and therefore was not in possession of those notified articles. He submitted that keeping in view that aspect of the matter the trial Court should have acquitted him and atleast the said order should have been set-aside by the appellate Court while deciding the said appeal. He prayed that this Court be pleased to set-aside the order of the trial Court which has been confirmed by the appellate Court by allowing this revision petition. Shri B.G. Neema counsel appearing for the respondent justified the impugned order by submitting that the said order is correct, proper and legal. The prosecution has examined PW Rajaram Tiwari for the purpose of establishing the possession of the petitioner in respect of those notified articles. Rajaram Tiwari has stated in his evidence that in view of the information received, he alongwith other members of the raiding party raided the said shop mentioned above, belonging to the petitioner when they were possessed with the search warrant. It is the evidence against the petitioner that those notified articles were found to have been in the said shop of the petitioner when the search was effected. Those articles were seized under the Panchnama Ex. P-2 which has been signed by the present petitioner on each page. His evidence has been corroborated by the evidence of Janardan Kharche, the inspector of Central excise department. His evidence is in the same tune as indicated by the evidence of Tiwari, the inspector of the Excise department. The evidence of these two witnesses has been corroborated by the evidence of Jitendra Kumar, the panch witness. The evidence of these witnesses has not been pointed out in the cross-examination so as to support the contention raised by the petitioner in this revision petition through his counsel Shri Gangrade that he was present in the said shop temporarily and was having no knowledge about the possession of those articles. The evidence of these witnesses has not been pointed out in the cross-examination so as to support the contention raised by the petitioner in this revision petition through his counsel Shri Gangrade that he was present in the said shop temporarily and was having no knowledge about the possession of those articles. It is pertinent to note that when the petitioner was examined under the provisions of section 313 of the CrPC 1973, he did not put up the contention which has been raised in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner Shri Gangrade. Apart from that, the statement of the petitioner recorded by the members of the raiding party in respect of those articles and which has been proved shows that it was none else but the petitioner who had purchased those articles from Bombay and he was not having any bill or voucher in support of the contention that those articles were purchased validly and lawfully. In view of that, I do not find any error on the part of the trial Court when the trial Court held him guilty for committing an offence under the provisions of section 135 of the Customs Act and passed the order of payment of fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. So also I do not find any error on the part of the appellate Court when it confirmed the order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner. I discard the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in respect of that. Shri Gangrade submitted that this Court be pleased to reduce the amount of fine keeping in view the period elapsed between the decision of the trial of the petitioner and decision of this revision petition. 47 wrist watches and 16 movements have been seized. Value of those articles was more than Rs. 6,000/on the date of said raid. Shri Gangrade submitted the petitioner has been fined for possession of those wrist watches and that should also be treated to be a ground for reducing the sentence. I do not find this to be a fit ground in which the fine should be reduced when the petitioner has not been sentenced to undergo any imprisonment at all by the trial Court. Thus the revision petition stands dismissed.