STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GUNWANTABHAI JAMNADAS DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a State appeal taking exception to the alleged inadequacy of the sentence imposed upon the respondent who was prosecuted and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a)(ii), 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.

(2.) Respondent on 23-7-1980 was concerned in fraudulent evasion, or at least, an attempt at evasion of customs import duty vis-a-vis 220 bottles containing Shepherd point tipping material made in U.S.A. The Customs Officer valued the property at Rs. 100/- per bottle. Not having the necessary authorisation to import the material the respondent had committed a breach of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act punishable under Section 5 of the afore-mentioned Act. The act was also punishable under Sections 135(1)(a)(ii) and 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. Adjudication proceedings were initiated against the respondent and therein the material was made confiscable though the respondent was given the option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 88,000/-.

(3.) The Assistant Collector of Customs laid a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. Respondent did not dispute the attempt to evade the payment of customs duty. He however contested the valuation made by the Customs authorities. According to the Customs, the property was of the value of Rs. 2,00,000/- and more. The learned Magistrate took into consideration the redemption fine to pay which the respondent had been given an option, to avoid confiscation of the material. Treating this as the valuation for the purpose of deciding the case, the learned Magistrate held that this was not a case for imposing a mandatory sentence of imprisonment. The Magistrate also took into consideration various extenuating factors such as respondent not making an attempt to conceal the contraband, his showing repentance and pleading guilty. For these reasons the Magistrate held that justice would be done by imposing upon respondent a day's S.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on each count. Non-payment of fine was to entail R.I. for six months per default. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently.