LexADAMJI UMAR DALAL versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1951 Tikait Hargobind Prasad Singh y, Srimatya Phaldani Kuma>·i. 1951 Nt>t1. 26. 172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l952J appointed the respondent as the ghatwal, stating that he was· "following a well-established pre- cedent in the case of these ghatwals by recognizing the widow m the absence of a direct heir." In my opinion, whatever evidence there is in this case sup- ports the Commissioner's view. and their is hardly any cogent evidence to rebut it: In the circumstances, I agree that this appeal ought to be dismissed wtih i::ost. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: P. K. Chatterjee. Agent for the re.~Jxmdent : S. P. Varma. ADAMJI UMAR DALAL v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY [SA!YID FAZL ALI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and VIVIAN BosE JJ.] Criminal trial-Sentence-Imposition .Pf fine-Guiding ,n~ ciples-Circumstances of' accused-Proportion between offence anti penalty-Very heavy fines with iniprisonment condetnned-Black- fnarketihg-Punishment-Supreme Court-Pt'actice-Criminal appeals -Interference tuith sentence. The determination of the right measure of punishment is often a point of great difficulty and no hard and fast rule can he ti.id down; it being a matter of discretion which is to be guided bj a variety of considerations, but the Court has always to bear in mind the necessity of proportion between an offence and the penalty. In im?>Sing a fine it is necessary to have as much regard to the pecuniary circu~nstanccs of the accused persons as to the character and magnitude of the offence and where a substantial term of imprisonment is inflicted, an excessive fiile should not accompany it, except in exceptional cases. Though the offence of black-marketing is very generally pre- 'Vclant in this country at the pr~t moment and when ii: is brought home against a person no leniency in the matter of sentence should be shown 3;0d a certain amount of S'!Verity may be Yety appropriate and even called for, yeti, when a •ubstantial . '!' . ~ J • S.C.R. ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS 173 . :sentence of imprisonment has been awarded especially to a commission agent, imposition of unduly heavy fines which may have been justified to· sume extent in ~e case of principals, is not called for. It is not the practice of the Supreme Court to interfere by :special leave in the matter of punishment imposed for crimes committed, except in exceptional cases where the sentences are unduly harsh and do not really advance the ends of justice. [The Court interfered in these cases and reduced the sentences on the ground that the fines imposed , were very heavy and quite dispro- portionate to the offences.] I CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 54 and 55 of 1951. Appeals. from the Judgments and Orders dated 11th April,, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Bavdekar. and Chainani JJ.) in Criminal Apeals Nos. 88 and 89 of 1951. ' H. f. Umrigar for the appellant. Jindra Lal for the respondent. 1951. November 26. 'f4e Judgment of the Cdurt was delivered by MAHAJAN J.-These tWo apepals by _special leave are limited to the question of . sentence only. In ease No; 1783/P of 1950, which has given riliie to Qrlrilinal, Appeal No. 54 of 1951, the appellant Adamji Umar · Dalal was fried a!Ong with five other persons on the following charges :- ''Fi!stly, that you at BOmbay on or about the 29th day .of becember, 1949, in (,X)ntravention of Government Notification No. 342/IV B, dated 27-1-46 issued under tlie Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, attempted to export by rail out of the State of Bombay fo Jalna, a place beyond the limits Of Bombay State, 50 barrels of kero8ene oil, Without having any permit in that behalf; by tnisdescribing or cawiing the mis- i:lescnption of . the said barrels of oil as high speed diciel oil, and thereby committed an offence plinish:. able under sections 7 . and 8 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. 1951 Adamji Umw Dahil v. T lie Stat# of Bombay. 1951 Adamii Umar Dalal v. The State of Bombay. Mahaj•n J. 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] Secondly, that you at Bombay, on or about the 29th day of December, 1949, attempted to export by rail 50 barrels of kerosene oil by misdescribing or causing the misdescriptjon of the same as high speed diesel oil, and abetted each other in the commission of the . said offence and thereby committed an off
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.