JUDGMENT
V.V. Vaze, J.
1. Some 14 persons were arraigned before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Case No. 52/CW of 1970, to face trial under Sections 135(a) and 135(b) read with Section 135(i) of the Customs Act, as also under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 upon complaint of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. After evidence of two witnesses was recorded, permission was granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the learned Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution against accused No. 1 as he entered the box on behalf of the prosecution. The charges against the accused were that they had entered into a conspiracy as a result of which two consignments containing contraband articles were taken from Surat to Bombay via Nasik. The learned Magistrate held accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 guilty under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 135(a) and 135(b) read with Section 135(1) of the Customs Act as well as under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and sentenced each of them to six months’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default 3 months’ R I. As far as accused No. 12 is concerned, ho was found guilty under Sections 135(a) and 135(b) read with Section 135(1) of the Customs Act and under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and sentenced to suffer six months’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default two weeks’ R.I. As against this judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 1976 was filed by the State against the acquittal of accused Nos. 7, 13 and 14 as well as the acquittal of other accused on different charges. The present appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1976 is filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence. These two appeals were heard together, but after the close of the arguments, it was discovered that accused No. 12 Sattar Mohamed Naik though served was neither present in person nor was represented by an Advocate. On verification, it was found that the Additional District Magistrate at the time of service has noted that accused No. 12 Sattar Mohamed Naik is in a position to defend himself. All the same, I decided to proceed with the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 1976 and had issued a fresh summons to accused No. 12. The judgment was delivered yesterday.
2. However, on going through the decision in A.H. Satranjiwala v. The State of Maharashtra 74 Bom. L.R. 742, I find that the phrase ‘if he appears’ in Section 423(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure only means that the hearing of the appeal on merits can be proceeded with even in default of the appearance of the accused, provided a notice of the hearing of the appeal has been served on him as required under Section 422 of the Code. As the service of notice is proved, I now review the order of issuing fresh summons and proceed with judgment in this appeal the arguments in which have been heard.
3. Mr. Kher, learned Counsel for the State, has urged at the Bar that the sentence of six months R.I. imposed on the accused is rather a lenient one because all these accused persons were engaged in transporting contraband foreign goods which was smuggled in a clandestine manner on the shore near Surat and that too after paying for the same in silver. According to Mr. Kher, the country has lost valuable foreign exchange in the shape of bullion and a sterner view should have been taken by the learned trial Magistrate in awarding the sentence. The details of the conspiracy alleged the manner in which the second consignment was taken in a truck from Surat to Nasik, how it was escorted by an Ambassador car in the front, followed by a station-wagon in the rear, and how the convoy was intercepted at Ambaner by the police party have been discussed in detail in the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 1976, and need not be repeated here. The role of accused No. 3 Mohamed Afzal Peer Mohamed as well as accused No. 4 Mohamed Farook Abdul Sattar and accused No. 9 Abdul Gafoor Moharnedbhai was that they were sitting in the Station-wagon which was trailing the truck; accused No, 6 Abdul Abid Abdul Kadar was driving the station-wagon while accused No, 12 Sattar Mohamed Naik was the cleaner of the truck. All these persons were standing trial for nearly six years in the Magistrate’s Court and none of them had any direct nexus with the operations of transporting the goods. This appeal has also dragged for some 10 years during which time the accused persons were on bail. That is to say right from 1969 till today for a period of 17 years this criminal case and the consequent appeals have been pending. It must have been a traumatic experience for the ill-paid poor persons who at best were doing menial jobs at the behest of someone to live under the fear that their sentence may be enhanced. By now, accused No. 4 Mohamed Farook Abdul Sattar has been in jail for more than 8 months because he had to undergo a further imprisonment as he could not pay the fine. Accused No. 6 Abdul Abid Abdul Kadar as well as accused No. 9 Abdul Gafoor Mohamedbhai have paid the fine of Rs. 3,000/- and undergone the Rigorous Imprisonment. As regards accused No. 12 Sattar Mohamed Naik who did not put in appearance, the record shows that till 1st July 1970 he was not released on bail at all with the result that he has undergone more than six months’ R.I. and was only a cleaner of the truck.
4. A Division Bench of this Court (Aggarwal & Parekh, JJ.) in Criminal Revision Application No. 132 of 1983 (The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Hasan Mohamed Khatib and Ors.), by its judgment dated 24th August 1984, have considered the Supreme Court cases of Laxmichand v. State of Maharashtra , and State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal , which were also prosecutions for offences under Section 135(a) read with Section 135(i) of the Customs Act, in which a sentence of six months’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was found to be just, and the notice of enhancement which was suo moto issued by the Court was discharged. The alleged smuggling in this case before the Division Bench involved gold biscuits of the value of Rs. 1.5 Crores which is very much higher than that in this case. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case and the secondary roles of the accused persons, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate was right in awarding a sentence of six months R.I. and fine and no enhacement is called for.
5. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled.