EMPEROR Vs. MOHANLAL GOKULDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from an order passed by the Presidency Magistrate, II Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, convicting the accused under Section 7 of Act XXIV of 1946 read with Clause 12 (1) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1945, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE case against the accused was that he sold to one Mrs. Gobhai a piece of Tootal drill cloth at the rate of Rs. 5-14-0 whereas the control price was Rs. 3-7-4 and he failed to give a cash memo in respect of this sale. THE prosecution case was sought to be established by the evidence of Mrs. Gobhai herself, a lady by the name of Miss Sidhwa who accompanied her and the panch witness. THE learned Magistrate in a very careful judgment has considered the evidence of these witnesses, has taken into consideration the discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by the defence and has come to the conclusion that all these three witnesses are witnesses of truth and the prosecution case has been established.

(3.) USUALLY a fine is imposed when the offence is the result of cupidity. When a person wants to make more money and to get rich and to amass a fortune at the cost of society and of its poor and needy members, the only way to deter others from following in his footsteps is to make it clear that crime is not easy and that he should not be permitted to enjoy his ill-gotten wealth. If the only sentence were the sentence of imprisonment and if the accused was permitted to come back after serving his sentence to enjoy the wealth which he has amassed by anti-social acts or by committing offences, then it certainly would not deter others from following in his footsteps. Therefore, not only must a fine be imposed, but the fine must be of such a character and of such an amount as to be really deterrent in its character.