STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. TILAKRAJ RAMSARAN THAPER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is States appeal against the order of sentence passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. The respondent was prosecuted under section 135(1)(b)(ii) read with section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. He was found in possession of foreign goods worth Rs. 27,694/-, which appeared to have been smuggled in this country without paying any duty. The accused has a shop and was found selling those goods at Shop No. 22 in Gandhi Market, Sion, Bombay.

(2.) Since the accused admitted the guilty the only question that was decided by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was about the sentence. The Counsel for the accused pleaded for mercy and leniency on the ground that the accused was a petty trader and a first offender. He assured the Court that the accused has stopped dealing in such goods and will not conduct business in such goods hereafter. It was also pointed out that the accused had not himself imported the goods but appeared to have been unaware that such goods cannot be sold. One of the grounds urged also was that the value of the goods found was very moderate and the substantive sentence need not be imposed. Accepting these reasons placed before the learned Magistrate he sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 13,500/- or in default to suffer R.I. for three months. Being dissatisfied with this order, the State has filed this appeal.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor read out to us the provisions of section 135 of the Customs Act. The legislature has divided the section into two compartments. After defining the offence, when it comes to sentence the legislature contemplates two different categories of offences. In one case the contraband articles are worth more than one lakh of rupees in terms of market value. In another category the goods are worth less than rupees one lakh so far as the market value is concerned. In the case of the earlier situation, the sentence provided extends to imprisonment upto seven years and with fine. There is a further proviso that in the absence of special and adequate reasons the substantive sentence shall not be less than six months. The legislature has also taken care to add sub-section (3) to section 135 by which what would not be adequate reasons for reducing the sentence to less than the minimum are also indicated. In other words where the case falls under Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 135, the Court can give a sentence of less than six months provided it is able to give special and adequate reasons which are different than those incorporated in sub-section (3) of the said section. The other category, viz., goods worth less then one lakh of rupees, is made punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.