-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2001 IN C.C. NO. 343/CW/94 Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Prosecution Cell, Sahar Airport, Mumbai .. Appellant. V/s. 1. Murtaza Moizibhai Tinwala Flat No. 301, Plot No. 268, Sher-E-Panjab Society, Sahil Bldg. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 .. Respondent. (Org.Accused) 2. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. ---- Mr. H.V.Mehta for the Appellant. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 16th FEBRUARY,2009 DATED : 16th FEBRUARY,2009 DATED : 16th FEBRUARY,2009 ORAL JUDGMENT .: ORAL JUDGMENT .: ORAL JUDGMENT .: 1. The appeal is filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Prosecution Cell, Mumbai for enhancement of the sentence to the respondent no.1 accused. 2. The respondent accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 120-B of IPC read with section 135(1)(a) and section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs -: 2 :- Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 75,000/- on each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On framing of the charge, initially the accused pleaded not guilty and the case was adjourned for recording of evidence. At later state, the respondent accused filed an application, pleading guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate found that the plea of the respondent accused is voluntary and thereafter, recorded a separate plea of the accused. The plea was accepted and the respondent accused was held guilty for the offence for which he was charged and the sentenced as stated above. 3. Mr. Mehta,learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the sentence provided under section 135(1)(ii) of the Act may extend to three years and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the respondent accused is insufficient. He further submitted that in order to have deterrent effect, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken stringent view. 4. The learned Magistrate took into consideration several circumstances in order to show leniency to the respondent accused. It is observed that the respondent is merely a carrier and therefore, had no knowledge of -: 3 :- quantity of smuggled foreign currency. The learned Magistrate also took into consideration that the accused has to look after his old parents and two brothers. Taking over all view of the matter, the learned Magistrate sentenced the respondent- accused to suffer R.I. for four months and to pay fine of Rs. 75,000/-. 5. The offence was committed in the month of September, 1993. The impugned order, convicting the respondent accused was passed in the month of August, 2000. The reasons given by the learned Magistrate to show leniency in my view, cannot be said to be insufficient. The approach adopted by the learned Magistrate also cannot be said to be unreasonable. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and disposed of as such. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....