Judgment 1. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 11-2-1993 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar to the extent of awarding inadequate sentence to the respondent after holding her guilty of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 . The trial Court sentenced the respondent for the period already undergone by her in custody, besides paying an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as fine. In default of payment of fine, the respondent was ordered to undergo further imprisonment for three months. 2. According to the complainant, the respondent was apprehended on 1-3-1990 at Land Customs Station, Attari, when she was returning from Pakistan and was found in possession of 14.300 kgs. of silver tied on her ankles, wrists and waist. The silver so recovered was valued at Rs. 97,669/-. 3. The trial Court had believed the prosecution case and convicted the respondent of the charge under Section 135 of the Customs Act. However, while passing the order of sentence, the trial Court observed that the respondent- accused was a lady and a first offender. She had already remained in custody from 1-3-1990 to 24-3-1990. Therefore, her case was required to be dealt with compassion and mercy. Accordingly, she was sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her in custody, besides paying an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as fine. 4. The impugned order of sentence was passed more than 17 years back. Under Section 135 of the Act, the respondent could have been sentenced to maximum imprisonment for three years. There is no requirement of imposition of any minimum sentence of imprisonment. The respondent had admittedly remained in custody for a period of about 3½ weeks during the trial of the case before being released on bail. The trial Court took about three years for its completion. All this while, the respondent must have remained under the agony of criminal prosecution. A period of 17 years has elapsed since the passing of the impugned order and, therefore, this Court would be reluctant in imposing any further sentence upon the respondent. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.