9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal for enhancement of sentence under Rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment involves an appeal by the Union of India seeking enhancement of the sentence of the respondent accused under Rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The respondent had been convicted for illegally removing and selling tobacco without paying Central Excise duty and clandestinely storing non-duty paid tobacco. The trial Court had sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, undergo three months' simple imprisonment. The appeal focused on the leniency of the sentence and the need for stricter punishment for economic offences. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial Court had been too lenient in sentencing the respondent and urged for the maximum penalty of Rs. 2,000/- as provided in Rule 151 of the Excise Rules. The respondent-accused did not appear despite the issuance of a show-cause notice. The judge considered the arguments and cited a Supreme Court ruling regarding the severity of punishment for economic offences, emphasizing that penalties should be tailored according to the circumstances of each case. 3. The judge noted that while the offence committed by the respondent was serious, it did not warrant a deterrent jail sentence like in cases of smuggling precious materials. The nature of the offence, involving the removal and storage of tobacco without paying duty, was considered in determining the appropriate sentence. The judge decided to enhance the sentence by ordering the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, undergo nine months' simple imprisonment, modifying the trial Court's order. 4. The judgment concluded by setting a deadline for the payment of the fine and specifying that failure to pay would result in the respondent being remanded to judicial custody to serve the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment. The decision aimed to balance the severity of the offence with the need for appropriate punishment, considering the circumstances and nature of the economic offence committed by the respondent.
|
