Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. As against the above, Mr. Kiran Jani, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents equally vehemently submitted that despite all the three accused persons making clean breast of everything and frankly pleading guilty, the learned Magistrate has indeed quite unduly and surprisingly came down upon all of them heavily by imposing rigorous imprisonment of as many as two years, two years and five years respectively alongwith substantial amount of fine in thousands! Mr. Jani further submitted that accused persons were at the most merely the carriers, not only that but they were young, only breadwinners in the family and offences alleged against them were first, and in that view of the matter the same constituting quite special and adequate reasons, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken still lighter view of the matter by imposing the sentence less than the actual awarded. Mr. Jani further submitted that in this sort of smuggling cases, the kingpin always remains out of reaches of the law enjoying in five star hotels and petty henchmen like his clients acting under some unfortunate compulsions of life, just become victim of the circumstances are booked and ultimately have to face the roughs, toughs and rigorous of prosecution, trial and ultimate conviction and sentence, which is just like "big fishes remain at large and small fries are caught in"!! Mr. Jani further submitted that in departmental proceeding, not only the huge haul of contraband goods came to be confiscated but each one of the accused persons have been heavily fined. Mr. Jani further submitted that while imposing the sentence, the same should be tampered with mercy and particularly when the accused were foreigners and have readily pleaded guilty without wasting public time of the trial Court and the Customs Department. In the alternative, Mr. Jani finally submitted that in case this Court was not inclined to accept any of his above submissions and intended to enhance the sentences, at least to the minimum sentence of imprisonment for three years or more, then having regard to the fact that after the impugned order of conviction and sentence came to be passed, Wong Ah Boo and Sumhadi Bin Maoris having already undergone additional imprisonment of 18 months and in all for as many as 42 months, while Asmi Firmanto has undergone the additional imprisonment of 40 months and 15 days, this additional period of sentence may be treated as enhancement of sentence and all the three accused be accordingly released forthwith as having undergone the period of enhanced sentences.

6. Now having heard the Learned Counsels for the respective parties quite at length, it may be stated at the very outset that the submissions made by the learned Special Senior P. P. Mr. Mehta have a considerable force and hence the same deserve to be accepted. It is indeed no doubt true that all the three respondents have pleaded guilty and on the basis of the same only, the impugned order of conviction and sentence came to be passed. It is equally further true that awarding of sentence is essentially a matter of trial Court's discretion and the same should not ordinarily be interfered with, unless it is found to be grossly inadequate and manifestly unjust. But then to this general principle, there is one exception, viz. that when the statute itself prescribes the minimum sentence, the trial Court has no option, discretion left to it but to impose minimum sentence prescribed, unless of course, the Legislature has also vested some further discretion to award less than the minimum on the ground of special and adequate reasons to be given in writing. In fact there is no such legal mandate and indeed there cannot be any one that whenever the accused pleads guilty, irrespective of the facts and circumstances of that particular case, the trial Court not only is bound to accept the same straightway but after accepting the same, as a matter of necessary corollary thereof, was further bound to award sentence lesser than the minimum prescribed under the Act, in the name of so-called "mercy"! In a given case like the present one or for that purpose in any other cases, whenever the learned Magistrate is befaced with the 'plea of guilty', he has to sound alert to this judicial conscience and discretion by adverting Firstly, to the fact whether the crime alleged is an organised one and/or of the professional category, or some such other ordinary offence which had taken place in the [heat of the moment] or due to some negligence or inadvertence. Secondly, by referring to the relevant provisions for the penalty prescribed under the Act and to find out therefrom whether the Statute has prescribed any minimum sentence. In this regard, the further care that is required to be taken is that, the concerned statute book he refers to is the latest and not the absolute one. Thirdly, the imagine and appreciate the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged and its resultant impact on the society and the nation as a whole. Fourthly, the unabated continuity and alarmingly increasing frequency of the alleged offences in the particular area. Fifthly, why indeed instead of alleged offences if not eradicated totally or arrested partly even, the same persisted being committed in that particular area and what indeed could be the possible reasons for the same.

Sixthly, what indeed should be the attitude or to put positively the response of the Court in order to effectively control and eliminate as far as possible, the intensity and frequency of the alleged offences. Seventhly, what indeed could be the real intention of the accused behind pleading guilty. Eighthly, could it be the possibility of some scheming attempt on the part of the accused to lure away the learned Magistrate reeling under the acute unnerving pressure of backlog of cases exploiting his weakness or greed for the quick disposal and thereby succumbing him to easy course of throwing away the cases with the lighter sentences to the liking of accused persons? Ninthly, could it be the fact that whenever the accused finds himself in a tight corner and accordingly difficult to come out from the clutches of the law, that is to say, roughs, toughs and rigours of the impending prolonged trial, conviction and sentence, he was bound to cleverly prefer low-profile before the learned Magistrate and in that methodical proceed dramatically tamming himself down pleading guilty to get away with the lighter possible sentence and walk out of the Court with a mischievious wink in one eye and the smile in his cheek!! Tenthly, that in such type of smuggling cases under the Customs Act these days the complaints are filed at quite a belated stage, and therefore, by the time the charge is framed, the accused as an under-trial prisoner languishes in jail for quite a long period. In a given case, even for more than two to three years! Under the circumstances, by the time the charge is framed, the accused many a time is tempted to plead guilty hopefully expecting that even if the Court was to impose some sentence of imprisonment, the period undergone as an under-trial prisoner would be readily given as set-off and as a result he would accordingly be immediately out of jail without further trial. Eleventhly, many a time (but for the experience in hundreds of such cases, this Court would have [possibly] restrained itself from observing) the Learned Magistrate sometimes inadvertently, may be sometimes in the blind craze for cheap disposal and sometimes even deliberately, despite reported decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court, accepts the "plea of guilty" on mere asking, letting off the accused with the lighter sentence perhaps not realizing the serious consequences of such unbecoming act on his service career that may follow. Twelfthly, the object underlying the particular act for example in the instant case, the national economy, (and for that purpose in other Acts security and the law order situation as the case may be) and awarding of what amount of sentence can take proper care of the same in minimizing if not [eliminating] the recurring of such offences in the areas!! Thirteenthly, further still where the statute prescribes minimum sentence, the fact that accused were young, poor, lone bread-winners, repenting or that it was their first offence, was indeed of no consequence in case of extreme grave nature like the present one. Fourteenthly, whether at the time of pleading guilty, the learned Public Prosecutor and the complainant were present so as not to take them by surprise by imposing sentence lesser than the minimum prescribed. Fifteenthly, over and above the statutory minimum sentence prescribed under the Act, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case where the offence alleged is of extreme grave and serious nature and accordingly, if the Court was prima facie even inclined to impose the maximum possible sentence, order to arrest crime wave despite the accused pleading guilty, whether the Court has disclosed its mind likewise before doing so. Sixteenthly, in order to have no room whatsoever for any remote possible allegation of plea-bargaining, in cases wherein the statute has prescribed the minimum sentence or where though no minimum sentence is prescribed, yet the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case like the present one was inclinded to impose maximum possible sentence of imprisonment and fine on accused pleading guilty, he should be asked to do so by filing clear-cut written purshis to the said effect.

In fact, it is the duty of the Court first of all to uphold the respect, dignity and honor of law, secondly of boosting morale of the Law enforcing agency and thirdly to keep intact the faith of people in the administration of Justice, and accordingly in an appropriate case like the present on the Court had got to rise to the occasion by inflicting the maximum sentence, if it does not want to unnecessarily expose itself to the allegation that one of the reasons for deteriorating of law and order situation in the country is perhaps the over-leniency and charitable view of the Court in dealing with the offenders. Accordingly, this Court at this stage can as well certainly enhance and impose the maximum sentence of seven years and further fine and would have without any hesitation positively done the same but it refrains from doing so for certain valid reasons! This Court is of the view that firstly when statute prescribes the minimum sentence, and the Court has no alterative but to impose the minimum and secondly, when the statute prescribes the maximum punishment and accordingly having regard to the extreme case of gravity and seriousness of the offences, the Court intends to impose the maximum sentence, then in such type of cases if the accused pleads guilty, it is the foremost duty of the Court in the first instance, to point out to the accused that - look here even if you plead guilty, the Court is not going to take a lenient view of the matter by imposing sentence less than the statutory minimum, and in the second instance, in case of extreme offence, where it is inclined to impose maximum sentence, the Court must disclose its mind as to for what maximum period - years of RI and fine it intends to impose. The consequences of accused pleading guilty must be told point blank in advance before accepting the same, as it would be simply unjust and unfair to take accused by surprise by imposing statutory minimum or maximum sentence as provided under the Act on their pleading guilty to the charge. To do so would be springing surprise and shock to the accused hitting him below the belt. It is not at all difficult to imagine that when the accused pleads guilty, he is tempted to plead so taking that by pleading guilty, the Court would be merciful and he would be left off with a lighter sentence. Such impression of the accused right or wrong cannot be permitted to be stabbed at his back by surprising him by imposing either the statutory minimum or the maximum sentence. In the instant case, had there been case of learned Advocate Mr. Jani that accused has been trapped because of the plea-bargaining, then the matter could have been remanded, but that is not the case here. Mr. Jani had submitted that this is not a case of plea-bargaining and the accused had voluntarily pleaded guilty. Under the circumstances, though this Court is very much inclined to impose the maximum sentence of seven years, it is under heavy constraints of justness and fairness to the accused by holding itself back in imposing the sentence of seven years as after recording the plea of guilty, much waters have flown and it is too late in a delay of inform them that this Court is going to impose on them the maximum imprisonment of seven years and accordingly, whether they wanted to plead guilty. It is for these reasons that though the accused are foreigners and are involved in a serious case of smuggling, this Court is holding back itself in not imposing the maximum possible sentence of seven years imprisonment just to take them by surprise. Once again, to do so would be simply hitting them below the belt which is quite unjust, unfair and unjudicial for any Court to do. In this view of the matter, by this time, since all the three accused persons have already undergone more than minimum sentence of three years (42 months of imprisonment) in all and further since the learned Sr. P. P. in principle quite satisfied with the additional period of about 18 months more undergone to be treated as enhancement of sentences so far as original' accused No. 2 and 3 are concerned, nothing further is required to be done in their case. So far as accused Sumhadi Bin Maoris is concerned, the trial Court has given quite convincing reasons in awarding sentence of five years he being the principle offender and Mr. Jani has failed to persuade this Court to reduce the same.