Mohali, Jan. 31 -- A local court has convicted a 41-year-old man under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, for smuggling 3.860 kg gold worth Rs.1.05 crore at Chandigarh International Airport, Mohali, in September 2018. The court sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000. According to the complaint filed by the customs department, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Chandigarh, intercepted two passengers Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Jagdeep Singh, on September 3, 2018, after they arrived from Sharjah on Air India Express flight IX-188. The passengers exited the customs arrival hall through the green channel without making any declaration. On questioning, both denied carrying any dutiable goods. DRI officers searched their hand baggage and checked-in baggage but found nothing objectionable. The officers then informed the passengers about a personal search and gave them the option to be searched before an executive magistrate or a gazetted officer of customs. Both opted for a search before a gazetted officer. During the personal search, officers found that the slippers worn by Jagdeep were unusually heavy. On opening them, four cut pieces of foreign-marked gold weighing 1,900 grams were recovered. On searching Rajesh Kumar Gupta, officers found five pieces of foreign-marked gold concealed in his shoes, weighing 1,960 grams. The total tariff value of the recovered gold was assessed at over Rs.1.05 crore, as per applicable customs notifications. During interrogation, both accused gave disclosure statements stating that the act was carried out at the instance of Harvinder Kumar, alias Billa. Proceedings were initiated against him, and he was arrested. The customs issued a show-cause notice and the court summoned the accused in January 2020. After completion of pre-charge and post-charge evidence, the court held Rajesh Kumar Gupta guilty of attempting to smuggle gold by concealment to evade customs duty. While hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence, the court noted the convict's submission that he was 41-years-old, had family responsibilities, and no previous criminal record. The court observed that there was no material to show he was a habitual offender....