2018 (3) TMI 850 - HC - Central Excise

Enhancement of punishment imposed on the respondents / accused - main point raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Excise appearing for the petitioner/complainant is that the Trial Court had committed an error by imposing a lesser sentence of imprisonment i.e., till the raising of the Court, without following the mandatory provisions of Section 9(1)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Held that - It is seen that the Trial Court having found the respondents / accused guilty under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act failed to ensure compliance with mandatory requirement, but awarded the punishment till raising of the Court, which is lesser than the minimum prescribed under the Act. In order to exercise desertion of reducing the sentence, the statutory requirement is that the Court has to record special and adequate reason in the Judgment, which would permit the Court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only to be special, but also adequate - In this case absolutely no reason has been recorded by the Trial Court for awarding such a sentence. Such an order is violative of the mandatory requirement of law and has defeated the legislative mandate. The imposition of sentence is in the realm of the discrimination of the Court. However, when law prescribes that there shall not be a lessor sentence than what is prescribed in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary, which has to be recorded in the judgement, the order of imposing sentence till the raising of the Court without recording any special or adequate reasoning is an order violative of the mandatory requirement of law. The matter is remanded back to the file of the Trial Court to determine the quantum of sentence / punishment afresh - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Trial Court erred in imposing a lesser sentence than the mandatory minimum prescribed under Section 9(1)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the Trial Court failed to record special and adequate reasons for imposing a lesser sentence.
3. The appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court in light of the legislative mandate and judicial precedents.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Error in Imposing Lesser Sentence
The petitioner/complainant filed a criminal revision seeking enhancement of the punishment imposed on the respondents/accused by the Trial Court. The respondents were found guilty under various sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for evading central excise duty amounting to ?46,58,289/- by non-observance of procedures, mis-declaration of products, and raising bogus invoices. The Trial Court, however, imposed a sentence of imprisonment till the raising of the Court, which is lesser than the minimum prescribed under Section 9(1)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 2: Failure to Record Special and Adequate Reasons
The main contention of the petitioner was that the Trial Court did not follow the mandatory provisions of Section 9(1)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, which requires special and adequate reasons to be recorded for imposing a sentence less than six months. The Trial Court failed to record any such reasons in its judgment, merely noting that the respondents had been appearing before the Appellate Tribunal for several years and their business was not doing well. This failure to record special and adequate reasons was deemed an error apparent by the petitioner.

Issue 3: Appropriateness of the Sentence
The petitioner argued that the Trial Court's imposition of a lesser sentence without recording special and adequate reasons was contrary to the legislative mandate. The petitioner cited several judicial precedents emphasizing the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the necessity of recording special reasons for any deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The cited cases, including State of M.P. vs. Munna Choubey and another, State of M.P vs. Bala alias Balaram, and Savarala Sai Sree vs. Gurramkonda Vasudevarao and others, highlighted the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of the offence and the social impact of the crime.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Trial Court's order was violative of the mandatory requirement of law as it failed to record any special or adequate reasons for imposing a lesser sentence. The criminal revision petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court to determine the quantum of sentence afresh. The Trial Court was directed to issue summons to the respondents/accused and complete the hearing on the quantum of sentence within two months, considering any mitigating circumstances presented by the petitioner.