Judgment :- The sole accused in C.C.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and three months and to pay a fine of Rs.Two Lakhs and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Set off was also allowed. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No.77 of 2003 before the IV Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate and found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act but modified the sentence imposed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and three months and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/= and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three more months. Set off was also allowed. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging those concurrent findings. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the finding of the courts below that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act is illegal and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the order passed by the courts below is legal and proper and does not call for any interference. 3. The case of the complainant is that on 23-8-1992, the revision petitioner arrived at Karipoor Air Port from Sharjah by flight. He declared that he was having 42 gold biscuits in his pocket and also a washing machine. He paid the duty payable for the gold biscuits, but he was not having enough funds for paying the duty for the washing machine. So he left the place. On the next day, he again appeared before the Customs Officer and offered the amount. P.W.1, on receipt of a reliable information that gold biscuits are concealed inside the washing machine, conducted a search inside the washing machine in the presence of the petitioner. It was seen that 210 gold biscuits having a market value of Rs.1,00,30,260/- were found concealed inside the washing machine. The same was seized. P.W.1, on receipt of a reliable information that gold biscuits are concealed inside the washing machine, conducted a search inside the washing machine in the presence of the petitioner. It was seen that 210 gold biscuits having a market value of Rs.1,00,30,260/- were found concealed inside the washing machine. The same was seized. The revision petitioner gave a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. According to him, the gold biscuits were concealed inside the washing machine by one Hamsa at Sharjah and he was only a carrier and for carrying the washing machine, he was offered an amount of Rs.50,000/=. It was also stated that he was given an amount of Rs.25,000/= as advance and the balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of delivery of the washing machine. Though a search was made for the person supposed to receive the washing machine, he could not be arrested. The gold biscuits were assayed by the chemical examiner of Customs House, Kochi. It was found that each of the 200 gold biscuits have gold purity of 99.77% and each of the 10 gold biscuits have gold purity of 99.88%. The Deputy Commissioner, Customs, Kochi, confiscated 210 gold biscuits and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/=. Subsequently the complaint was also filed. 4. When the revision petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate, copies of the relevant documents were furnished to him. On the side of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. Exts.P1 to P17 and Ext.C1 were marked. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate framed charges under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act. The charges were read over and explained to the revision petitioner. He understood the same and pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution evidence was over, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were re-called and P.Ws. 1 to 6 examined. 5. After the prosecution evidence was over, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied all the allegations levelled against him, but no defence evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence found the revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. That conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Though the petitioner has raised a contention that there is no evidence to connect him with the offence, the material on record shows otherwise. P.W.1. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence found the revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. That conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Though the petitioner has raised a contention that there is no evidence to connect him with the offence, the material on record shows otherwise. P.W.1. was working as Superintendent, Special Customs Preventive Division, Kozhikode. He was having the additional charge of the Superintendent, Intelligence, Airport, Kozhikode also. He deposed that on 23-8-1992, the revision petitioner arrived at Karipoor Air Port from Sharjah and made a declaration that he was having 42 gold biscuits and a washing machine. He further deposed that as the revision petitioner was not having sufficient money to pay the duty, he went away without paying the Customs duty payable for the washing machine and on the next day he came back for collecting the same. P.W.1 further deposed that he got a reliable information that gold was concealed inside the washing machine. He opened the same and searched inside the washing machine. It was found that 210 gold biscuits were concealed inside the washing machine. He further deposed that the gold was assayed and the market value of the gold biscuits will come to Rs.1,00,39,260/=. The gold was seized under Ext.P3 mahazar. The Passport, Air Ticket, Excess Baggage Ticket etc. found in the possession of the revision petitioner were seized and marked as Exts.P4, P5 and P6 respectively. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3 deposed that Ext.P3 mahazar was written in his handwriting and he has affixed his signature. P.W.3 deposed that he had seen P.W.1 seizing 210 gold biscuits which was concealed inside the washing machine. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 an independent witness. P.W.4 deposed that he had seen P.W.1 seizing gold biscuits concealed in the washing machine. The purity of the gold was also assayed. The materials on record show that on 23-8-1992, the revision petitioner arrived at the Karipoor Airport from Sharjah by flight and he brought a washing machine and inside that washing machine 210 gold biscuits were concealed. So the finding of the courts below that the revision petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act is correct and does not call for any interference. 7. So the finding of the courts below that the revision petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act is correct and does not call for any interference. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a person having no work and he was mainly used as a carrier. He was offered an amount of Rs.50,000/= but he received only Rs.25,000/=. The petitioner is unable to pay any fine imposed. The learned Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs.Two Lakhs. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the revision petitioner has no capacity to pay that much amount and reduced the fine amount to Rs.50,000/-. Though I do not find any reason to interfere with the substantive sentence imposed, I am of the view that the quantum of fine amount can be modified and reduced to Rs.15,000/= and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner will have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The finding of the courts below that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act is confirmed. The conviction is also confirmed. Substantive sentence imposed is also confirmed. But the fine amount imposed is modified and reduced to Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.