Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 850 - HC - Central ExciseEnhancement of punishment imposed on the respondents / accused - main point raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Excise appearing for the petitioner/complainant is that the Trial Court had committed an error by imposing a lesser sentence of imprisonment i.e., till the raising of the Court, without following the mandatory provisions of Section 9(1)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Held that: - It is seen that the Trial Court having found the respondents / accused guilty under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act failed to ensure compliance with mandatory requirement, but awarded the punishment till raising of the Court, which is lesser than the minimum prescribed under the Act. In order to exercise desertion of reducing the sentence, the statutory requirement is that the Court has to record special and adequate reason in the Judgment, which would permit the Court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only to be special, but also adequate - In this case absolutely no reason has been recorded by the Trial Court for awarding such a sentence. Such an order is violative of the mandatory requirement of law and has defeated the legislative mandate. The imposition of sentence is in the realm of the discrimination of the Court. However, when law prescribes that there shall not be a lessor sentence than what is prescribed in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary, which has to be recorded in the judgement, the order of imposing sentence till the raising of the Court without recording any special or adequate reasoning is an order violative of the mandatory requirement of law. The matter is remanded back to the file of the Trial Court to determine the quantum of sentence / punishment afresh - petition allowed by way of remand.
|