1965 (12) TMI 21 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction under Section 120B of the Penal Code and Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
2. Limitation of leave granted by the Supreme Court to the question of sentence.
3. Application for extending the scope of leave granted.
4. Question of sentence imposed by the High Court exceeding the Magistrate's jurisdiction.
5. Argument regarding the profit made by the appellants influencing the sentence.
6. Decision on reducing the fine imposed on the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an appeal against the conviction of the appellants under Section 120B of the Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The appellants were initially acquitted by the Magistrate but later convicted by the High Court.

2. The Supreme Court had granted leave to the appellants limited to the question of sentence. The appellants' counsel wanted to argue that the conviction itself could not be supported, but this point was abandoned during the hearing.

3. The appellants also filed an application to extend the scope of the leave granted, but it was not considered as there was no certificate as required by the Rules. The application had to be made to the Judge who granted special leave.

4. The main issue raised during the appeal was the question of the sentence imposed by the High Court, which exceeded the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Supreme Court held that the sentence of a fine imposed by the High Court was not within the Magistrate's power and reduced it to Rs. 2,000/- for each appellant.

5. The respondent argued that the appellants had made significant profits, justifying the heavy fine imposed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the profit made should not solely determine the sentence. The focus should be on the seriousness of the breach of the law and the need for a deterrent sentence.

6. The Supreme Court ultimately decided to reduce the fine imposed on the appellants to Rs. 2,000/- each, as that was the maximum amount the Magistrate could impose. The appellants had already paid the fine imposed by the High Court, so no further sentence of imprisonment in default of payment was necessary. They were entitled to a refund after the deduction of the reduced fine.