STATE Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge recommending that the sentence imposed on the accused respondent by the trial Magistrate being lenient, be enhanced.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this reference briefly stated are these :

(3.) THE Counsel for the accused respondent has argued that the Courts below have erred in convicting the accused inasmuch as the offence of which the accused was charged has not been brought home to him. He read over the complaint filed by the Excise and Taxation Officer and also the statement made by him and contended that the statement made by the Officer does not support the complaint. In his statement the Excise and Taxation Officer has stated that the accused had kept wine in his hotel without any licence. The accused admitted that he had supplied wine to a customer which was illegal. The accused further stated that the statement of the prosecution witness was correct. In our opinion the conviction of the accused under Section 48 of the Excise Act was rightly recorded on the evidence which was produced in this case. The trial Magistrate, it appears, was influenced by the fact that the accused had admitted his guilt and had begged pardon and therefore, he imposed a very lenient sentence. But the sentence passed on the accused is so grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence that there is no alternative but to enhance it. The mere fact that the accused begged pardon and threw himself at the mercy of the Court is no justification for awarding such a lenient and inappropriate sentence. The admission of the guilt and apologetic attitude of the accused may be an extenuating circumstance but that would not justify the Magistrate to impose a fine of Re.1 for an offence of this nature. The Magistrate in awarding the sentence which is manifestly inadequate clearly betrayed his weakness and lack of sense of proportion. It must be borne in mind that those who are called upon to administer criminal law should realise that they owe a duty not merely to the individual accused before them, but also to the State and the community at large. If an accused is found guilty he should be punished and the sentence should normally be in proportion to the gravity of the offence. Some leniency may be shown in awarding sentence if there are exceptional and extenuating circumstances in the case. But no such exceptional and extenuating circumstances exist in the instant case to justify imposition of such a grossly inadequate fine of Re.1. We would, therefore, accept the recommendation of the Additional Sessions Judge and enhance the sentence of fine from Re.1 to Rs.25. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo one weekâ„¢s simple imprisonment. The accused has already paid Re.1. He shall pay the balance of Rs.24 within two days from today, or in default undergo imprisonment for the period indicated above.