ANANT RAJENDRALAL THAKARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed but the original first accused against his conviction of various offences under section 12-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Customs Act, 1962, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is unnecessary for me to consider the merits of this appeal in view of the fact that Mr. Mehta on behalf of the first accused has confined himself in this appeal to the question of sentence. It may be stated that the accused was convicted by the trial Court on his own plea of guilty, and in view of the fact that Mr. Mehta has not sought to challenge that conviction in this appeal, the conviction of the first accused for the respective offences of which the trial Court has found him guilty must be confirmed.

(2.) Under the circumstances, it is necessary for me to refer to the facts only in so far as they affect the question of sentence. It is the case of the first accused that he was a partner along with the wife of the second accused in a firm named Messrs Anant & Co. in which the second accused was the manager and the fourth accused was the Assistant Manager. According to the first accused, the transactions in question wee carried out by the second accused along and he had merely allowed the second accused, who was his brother, to make use of his office for the correspondence and the transactions out of which this case has arisen. The first accused has stated categorically in the written statement containing the plea of guilty that he had not received any profits in respect of the goods in question as he was not to share the same. According to the statement made by the second accused, who has also pleaded guilty in the trial Court, that statement is correct, thought he second accused has proceeded to state that, later on in the course of the transactions in question, he had taken the fourth accused in confidence and had shared the profits with him. There is, however, documentary evidence in the form of the entries (Ex. Z-2) made by the fourth accused which would ex facie show that the profits of the transactions in question were shared by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in certain proportions. Having regard to that entry and having regard to the fact that the first accused was admittedly a partner with the wife of the second accused in the firm of Anant & Co., I am inclined to agree with the trial Magistrate that, though it cannot be said to have been proved, there would be reason to believe that the first accused may have shared in the profits of the impugned transactions. Mr. P.A. Mehta on behalf of the first accused has made an impassioned plea that he should be given the benefit of the probation of Offenders Act, but in my opinion, this is not a case in which the first accused should be given that benefit. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of (Ram Prakash v. The State of Himachal Pradesh) A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 780 the Court should not lightly resort to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in the case of persons above 21 years of age who are found guilty of what maybe called anti-social offences. It may be mentioned for the sake of completing the record that Mr. Mehta stated that the first accused is 39 years of age and the first accused himself has given his age in the trial Court as 38 at that time. In view, however, of the fact that it does appear that it was the second accused who had played an active part in the commission of the offences in question, though the learned trial Magistrate has himself taken that into account, I think a reduction in the substantive sentence of imprisonment passed on the first accused in the present case is called for in this appeal. I, therefore, reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment passed upon the first accused by the trial Court in respect of each of the offences of which he has been found guilty from that of rigorous imprisonment for four months to rigorous imprisonment for one month. I, however, maintain the sentences of fine imposed upon him by the trial Court, as well as the sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine passed by the trial Court in respect of each of those offences. The sentences of imprisonment passed by me on the first accused will run concurrently with each other. The appeal is, therefore, allowed only to that extent. The first accused to surrender after two weeks from today.

(3.) For the reasons stated above, I pass no order on the application of review.