* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.471 OF 2009 W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 411 OF 2009 (FOR BAIL) IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2009 Govind Asandas Vayani ....Applicant/Orig.accused vs. 1. Shri.K.A.Kuruvilla Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate 2. State of Maharashtra ....Respondent/s ======== Mr.Subhas Jha i/by.M/s.Law Global,Advocate for Applicant. Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP for State-respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 3 rd August, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. The applicant by this Criminal Revision Application seeks only leniency in the sentence awarded to him on his conviction vide judgment and order dated 28th July 2009 by the Sessions court under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, * 2 * 1973 (for short `the FERA’) read with Section 49(3)(4) of Foreign exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short `the FEMA’) for six months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000. 3. The applicant was found dealing in the business of foreign exchange without the permission of Reserve Bank of India. He was found to have purchased or sold foreign currency of a total value of Rs.1,47,71,800/-. The Enforcement Directorate had effected a raid on him and found him with foreign currency. Proceedings have been initiated against him under FERA, as well as the, FEMA. The Special Director of Enforcement under the adjudication order dated 7th December, 2000 imposed a penalty of Rs.40,00,000/- upon the applicant which was to be paid within a period of 45 days. As he failed to pay the amount, complaint under Section 57 of the FERA came to be filed. The trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to suffer RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. This order was modified in the appeal preferred by the applicant to the Sessions Court. The sentence was reduced from six months RI to four months RI. The applicant now seeks further reduction in the sentence. 4. Mr.Jha, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Apex Court has always taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded appropriate punishment on conviction. He relies upon following three decisions, (i) * 3 * Harihar Prasad V/s.State of Bihar reported in (1972) 3 SCC page 89.(ii) Shri.Durga Dass V/s.State of Himachal Pradesh reported in CDJ 1973 SC page 295.(iii) Jagdish Prasad alias Jagdish Prasad Gupta V/s.State of West Bengal reported in CDJ 1971 SC page 633 to submit that even in case of offence for which the highest punishment is life imprisonment, the Apex Court has awarded punishment as less as of 18 months and fine. He further refers to personal circumstances of the applicant and requests for a lenient view. The applicant is 59 years old. He is said to have suffered heart attack in the year 2005. The health of his wife is also not said to be good. It has been further argued by Mr.Jha that the complaint against the applicant under FERA is still pending. He submits that the applicant is already going through the trauma of the pending proceedings and therefore lenient view of the matter is justified. 5. I have perused both the judgments, of the trial court as well as of the appellate court and I am convinced that the view taken by the appellate court is a lenient view. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case reducing the sentence any further would amount to travesty of justice and doing disservice to the society as a whole. Hence, Criminal Revision * 4 * Application is dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the Criminal Revision Application, the application for bail does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J]