NEW DELHI: After going through all three levels of the justice system and more than 40 years later, a smuggling case – illegal import of 777 foreign-made watches – came to an end on February 23 with the Supreme Court convicting three accused but saying that sending them to jail again would be harsh given the years of pendency in the case and their “advanced age”.The case, which dates back to the pre-economic liberalization period when smuggling of foreign electronic goods, especially from the Gulf countries, was rampant as they were not easily available due to licensing requirements, was pending for 18 years before the Bhuj trial court, another 2 years before an additional court, 5 years before the Gujarat High Court and finally 15 years before the Supreme Court.In 1985, the Supreme Court concluded a case involving the smuggling of branded watches such as Seiko, Citizen and Ricoh, and sentenced the defendant to about a year in prison. The crimes they were accused of were punishable by up to five years in prison, but the proceedings lasted 41 years.The Supreme Court said: “The surviving appellant, who is now of advanced age, has experienced a lengthy period of imprisonment, reportedly approximately one year, which is in excess of the statutory minimum term of six months under section 135 (1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962.”“Against this background, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the almost four decades since the incident occurred, the period of imprisonment already experienced by the appellant, the long pendency of the proceedings and the advanced age of the surviving appellant, we are of the considered opinion that directing the appellant to submit to any further custodial sentence at this time would be unduly harsh and detrimental to the ends of justice,” the statement said.The court upheld the order of the Gujarat High Court convicting them but reduced the three-year jail sentence imposed by the Supreme Court to time served. “In the unique facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be served by reducing the appellant’s sentence to time already served,” the statement said.The trial lasted 18 years and the defendant was convicted in 2003. Seven years later, the HC dismissed their appeal and upheld their conviction and three-year jail sentence. They filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, which held its first hearing on February 14, 2011, and took 15 years to rule on the case.The Supreme Court said: “After comprehensive consideration of the matter, we agree with the opinion of the Supreme People’s Court. The finding of guilt recorded by the trial court and confirmed simultaneously by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme People’s Court does not contain anything abnormal, illegal or manifestly erroneous, and there are no circumstances warranting the exercise of jurisdiction by this court under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
