JUDGMENT : 1. In this revision petition, the challenge is to impugned judgment of 18th December,2003, which upholds the conviction and sentence imposed upon petitioner for committing offence under Section 135 (1) (a) of The Customs Act, 1962. The substantive sentence imposed upon petitioner is of rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine. 2. On 18th July, 1989, Rajiv Batra, co-accused of petitioner was apprehended at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi and from the VCP carried by him, 385 gms. of gold was recovered and since co-accused Rajiv Batra had failed to produce the documents regarding import of the said gold, it was seized under Section 110 of The Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, statement of co-accused Rajiv Batra under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 was recorded, in which he had named the petitioner and his co-accused-Rajesh Kumar, which led to initiation of proceedings under. The Customs Act, 1962, which had culminated in the conviction of petitioner and same was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. 3. In this revision petition, to assail the impugned conviction of petitioner, learned counsel for petitioner contends that it is mandatory to obtain sanction under Section 157 of The Customs Act, 1962 and the sanction EX.PW1/A has not been proved by the Officer who had given the sanction. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the statements of accused persons recorded under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 are contradictory and thus, not reliable and the impugned order, convicting the petitioner is bad in law. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that co-accused Rajiv Batra has stated in his statement under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 that he had known petitioner whereas co-accused Rajesh Kumar, who has been acquitted, had stated in his statement under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 that co-accused Rajiv Batra did not know petitioner and so, conviction of petitioner is bad in law, as no recovery has been effected from him. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the case of petitioner is at par with the case of ac-cused-Rajesh Kumar, who has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt by the trial Court, so on parity basis, petitioner be also acquitted. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the case of petitioner is at par with the case of ac-cused-Rajesh Kumar, who has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt by the trial Court, so on parity basis, petitioner be also acquitted. 5. Alternatively, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has already remained behind bars for more than six months, he is a poor person, who could not furnish bail for four months and so, he was ordered to be released by this Court upon furnishing personal bonds and that he is facing proceedings in this case since the year 1989. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is earning his livelihood by working as a van driver at a salary of Rs.4,00/- p.m. and that he has a family to support. It is also submitted that petitioner is a heart patient and is undergoing treatment for it. Thus, it is submitted by petitioner's counsel that there exists special and adequate reasons to reduce substantive sentence to period already undergone by him and fine imposed stands deposited. 6. To meet the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for respondent contends that the sanctioning authority need not be called into the witness box, as the Sanctioning Officer (PW-1) has duly proved the sanction (Ex. PWA/1) for prosecution of the petitioner in this case. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent that petitioner cannot be treated at par with co-accused Rajesh Kumar, as petitioner is the main accused whereas the role of co-accused Rajesh Kumar was only of arranging passport and tickets and he has just accompanied petitioner to the airport, because co-accused Rajesh Kumar was not knowing co-accused Rajiv Batra, from whom recovery has been effected and that that the retraction of statement under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962, is of no consequence because it is coupled with the recovery of gold. It is pointed out that there are no material contradiction in the prosecution version which inspires confidence. Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed, as petitioner has no case on merits. 7. After hearing learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of impugned order and evidence on record, I find no substance in the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner because there is no worthwhile challenge to the deposition of Seizing Officer (PW-1), who has proved the sanction. 7. After hearing learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of impugned order and evidence on record, I find no substance in the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner because there is no worthwhile challenge to the deposition of Seizing Officer (PW-1), who has proved the sanction. Otherwise also, it is not shown as to what is the lacuna in the sanction granted for prosecution of petitioner in this case. Upon perusal of statements of accused persons recorded under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962, I find that there is no material contradiction in their statements and it becomes evident from the said statement of petitioner that he was the accused, who had got arranged passport and tickets for co-accused Rajiv Batra through co-accused Rajesh Kumar, who has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and rightly so, because petitioner cannot be treated at par to accused Rajesh Kumar and so, in the considered opinion of this Court, conviction of petitioner is well merited. 8. As regards substantive sentence imposed upon petitioner is concerned, this Court finds that as per Proviso to Section 135 of The Customs Act, 1962, for special and adequate reasons, substantive sentence of less than one year can be awarded. Appellate Court has not quoted any provision which provides for imposition of minimum sentence of one year and has not taken into consideration that at the time of incident, appellant was twenty three years of age and was married and was having a daughter. Not only that petitioner has faced these proceedings since the year 1989, but now petitioner has suffered heart ailment and is stated to be under treatment from G.B.Pant Hospital as an outdoor patient. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner has produced one OPD card of G.B.Pant Hospital showing that petitioner is under medication. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that special and adequate reasons exist to award substantive sentence lesser than one year. Resultantly, the substantive sentence imposed upon petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. This petition is partly allowed in aforesaid terms.