JUDGMENT
B. Lentin, J.
1. The 1st respondent is a Chartered Accountant. He is employed in Kuwait. Thanks to the sensitivity of the metal detector at the International Airport at Bombay, the first respondent was on 12.8.1988 detected carrying one gold bar weighing 1 kg. of the market value of Rs. 3,21,000/-. The 1st respondent admitted possession and ownership of this contraband article. In the ensuing complaint filed against him in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 135(1)(a) read with 135(1)(i) and Section 135(1)(b) read with 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the first respondent pleaded guilty to all the 3 charges levelled against him. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate accepted his plea of guilt and sentenced him to one day’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 34,000/- on each of the three charges, in default 6 months rigorous imprisonment; the substantive sentences for all the offences to run concurrently. Hence the present criminal revision application.
2. On behalf of the Department, their learned Counsel Mr. Patwardhan invites us to enhance the sentence of one day’s simple imprisonment imposed on the respondent. Mr. Patwardhan says that none of the reasons given by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate fall within the discretionary powers under Section 135 of the Customs Act.
3. To the contrary is urged by the 1st respondent’s learned Counsel Mr. Kotwal who relies on a decision of a Division Bench of this High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 1987 dated 6.4.1988 (to which one of us, Mehta J. was a party). Relying on this decision, Mr. Kotwal says that the ratio of that decision applies mutatis mutandis to the facts of the matter before us.
4. On a perusal of the judgment relied on by Mr. Kotwal, we find that the learned Judges have not laid down any principle of law but have decided the petition on the facts of that case. We would like to add that we do not subscribe to the rationale of the submission of Mr. Kotwal that an educated person such as the Respondent can escape jail sentence, whereas an ignorant and illiterate person must suffer the rigours of the law. In the facts and circum. stances of this case and without setting a precedent for the future and with the rider that every matter of this kind must necessarily be decided on the facts and circumstances of its own case, we are of the opinion that the judicial discretion exercised by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the present case in imposing the sentence of only simple imprisonment calls for no interference.
5. At the same time, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that it is equally just and fitting that the 1st respondent, him-sell an educated man and should have known better, cannot be let off lightly by payment of fine of a mere Rs. 34,000/- on each count.
6. Therefore, while retaining the sentence of one day’s S.I., we enhance the fine imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate from Rs. 34,000/- on each count to Rs. 70,000/- on each of the three counts. In default of payment of the fine of Rs. 70,000/- on any of the three counts, the 1st respondent shall suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year on each such count instead of 6 months awarded to him by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
7. Rule made absolute. The criminal revision application is disposed of in the light above.