R. Narayana Pisharadi ORDER
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.
1. The revision petitioners are the first and the third accused in the case C.C. No. 138/1991 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam.
2. The case is based on the complaint filed against five accused persons by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Cochin.
3. The case of the complainant is as follows: On 09.01.1990, at about 20.00 hours, the Superintendent of Special Customs Preventive Unit, Kannur intercepted the jeep bearing Reg. No. KRZ 7183 at a public road. The second accused was the driver of the jeep. The first and the third accused and two other persons were travelling in the jeep. On inspection of the jeep, it was found that a washing machine was being transported in it. The jeep with the washing machine was taken to the office of the Special Customs Preventive Unit at Kannur. When the washing machine was unscrewed and dismantled, it was found that nine gold biscuits, weighing 116.000 grams, were concealed inside it. The Superintendent of Customs seized the gold biscuits.
4. Investigation of the case revealed that accused 1 to 3 had taken the washing machine with gold biscuits from the house of the fourth accused and that the fourth accused had brought the washing machine with the gold biscuits from Doha at the instance of the fifth accused who was working in Doha.
5. Charge against accused 1 to 3 and 5 was framed by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. They pleaded not guilty. The fourth accused was absconding during the trial of the case.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts.P1 to P29 documents. No evidence was adduced by the accused.
7. The trial court found the second and the fifth accused not guilty of the offence charged against them and acquitted them. The trial court found the first and the third accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and convicted them there under. The trial court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each.
8. The first and the third accused preferred Crl.A. No. 626/2001 before the Court of Session, Ernakulam challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence against the petitioners.
9. This revision petition is filed by the first and the third accused challenging the concurrent findings of guilty, conviction and sentence made against them by the courts below.
10. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Customs, who appeared for the respondent.
11. Conviction of the revision petitioners is based on the evidence given by the Superintendent of Customs (PW1), who detected the offence, and the Inspector of Customs (PW2) regarding the occurrence which was corroborated by the statements given by the revision petitioners before PW1 under Section