M. P. THAKKAR, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) THE only question before the Court is whether the sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Mehsana can be considered to be adequate and whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the recommendation to enhance the sentence deserves to be accepted. Opponent Ramjibhai was found guilty by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the evidence adduced before him which he found to be satisfactory both from the point of view of quantity as well as quality apart from the fact that Ramjibhai admitted that he had committed the offence by reason of his ignorance of the legality of the conviction was not challenged before the Sessions Judge. And it has not been challenged before this Court. The debate has centered round the question as to whether the sentence requires to be enhanced as recommended by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for opponent Ramjibhai is right in his submission that by and large the question of sentence is a matter of discretion of the trial Judge and that the High Court should not lightly interfere as observed in Alemgir and another v. The State of Bihar A. I. R. 1959 S. C. 435. The proposition of law is not in dispute viz. that the High Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to enhance the sentence but that this jurisdiction can be exercised only if the High Court is satisfied that the sentence imposed by the learned Judge is unduly lenient or that in passing the order of sentence the learned trial Judge has manifestly failed to consider the relevant facts. The present case however is one which calls for interference by the High Court as in my opinion the sentence imposed is totally inadequate and unduly lenient. In a case where tobacco worth more than Rs. 61 0 has been found to the stored in a godown by a party without payment of duty which is estimated to amount to Rs. 55000/it is difficult to accept the plea regarding ignorance of law. Opponent Ramjibhai must have realised that the tobacco which would fetch in the open market about Rs. 61 0 would not be available in the market for Rs. 7000. 00or so. 55000/it is difficult to accept the plea regarding ignorance of law. Opponent Ramjibhai must have realised that the tobacco which would fetch in the open market about Rs. 61 0 would not be available in the market for Rs. 7000. 00or so. He was doing business on a very large scale and had stored 922 bags of tobacco weighing 15947 Kg. If the plea of ignorance of law were to be accepted in such a case the provisions of law could be mocked at with impunity. Offences of this nature have serious impact on the society inasmuch as they are antisocial offences. And where attempt is made to evade public duties running into about Rs. 55 0 if the culprit is allowed to escape on payment of a paltry sum of Rs. 250/all concerned will lose faith in the judicial system. One can understand a poor person or a person in distress resorting to an offence against property. When however a relatively rich businessman commits an offence of this nature he deserves no sympathy. He deserves to be severely dealt with. Robbing the State by evading the provisions of the Excise Act is an offence of a much more serious character. It results in depriving the society of its legitimate dues and in indirectly increasing its burden of taxation. The offence of a businessman who robs the public exchequer of such a large sum of Rs. 55 0 cannot be viewed with the degree of sangfroid that has been exhibited by the learned trial Judge. Courts may be moved by a plea of mercy emanating from a petty clerk caught in the jaws of economic oppression who finds himself driven into committing an offence against property under dire distress. A plea of mercy from one who attempts to rob the very society which protects him from being robbed has a touch of irony. The situation calls for firmness on the part of the Courts. If softness is shown in such cases it can only tarnish the image of the judicial system. Unless these provisions are enforced with the degree of seriousness they deserve the breach of the relevant provisions cannot be prevented. To impose a lenient sentence in the fact and circumstances of the present case is to encourage the offender pat him on the back and to abet him. Unless these provisions are enforced with the degree of seriousness they deserve the breach of the relevant provisions cannot be prevented. To impose a lenient sentence in the fact and circumstances of the present case is to encourage the offender pat him on the back and to abet him. Under the circumstances a sentence of fine alone is totally inadequate. A substantive sentence of imprisonment must be imposed on the offender. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case the ends of justice will be satisfied if opponent Ramjibhai is sentenced to suffer one months rigorous imprisonment The sentence of fine of Rs. 250/imposed by the learned trial Judge will of course be maintained. ( 3 ) THE reference is therefore accepted partially. The sentence imposed on opponent Ramjibhai is enhanced and a substantive sentence of one months rigorous imprisonment over and above the sentence of fine of Rs. 250/and in default simple imprisonment for two months is imposed. Warrant of arrest to issue. .