1976 (4) TMI 53 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the sentence imposed for illicit removal of tobacco liable to excise duty was unduly lenient and inadequate.
2. Whether the sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate should be enhanced.
3. Whether the plea of guilty made by the defendant is valid considering the timing of the offense in relation to the relevant law.
4. Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate should be set aside and a re-trial ordered.

Analysis:
1. The respondent was prosecuted under Section 9(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for illicit removal of tobacco. The trial Magistrate imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 250. The High Court held that such a lenient sentence for a serious economic offense is inadequate and encourages offenders. Therefore, the Court found the sentence unduly lenient and decided to enhance it to rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. The Court emphasized that economic offenses like the illicit removal of goods liable to excise duty must be viewed seriously. The lenient sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate was considered inadequate and likely to encourage further offenses. Hence, the Court decided to enhance the sentence to deter the defendant and others from committing similar offenses in the future.

3. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, but a subsequent application raised concerns about the timing of the offense in relation to the relevant law. It was highlighted that the offense was committed before the relevant law came into effect. The Court found that the defendant could not be convicted under a law that was not in force at the time of the offense. As a result, the plea of guilty was deemed invalid, and the conviction was set aside. A re-trial was ordered under the appropriate provisions of law applicable at the time of the offense.

4. In light of the issues raised regarding the timing of the offense and the validity of the conviction, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate. The case was remanded back to the trial Court for a re-trial to be conducted by a different Magistrate. The trial Court was directed to complete the re-trial within three months from the date of receipt of the writ to ensure timely resolution of the matter.