JUDGMENT - M.S. APTE, J.:---This is an application by the State for enhancement of sentence imposed by the Presidency Magistrate, 23rd Court, Bombay, for offences under section 5 read with section 3 of the Import Exports (Control) Act, 1947, under section 135(ii) read with section 135(a) and section 135(ii) read with section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Magistrate has awarded rigorous imprisonment for one day to accused No. 1 and a fine of Rs. 300/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months on each of the three courts and to each of accused Nos. 2 to 4 rigorous imprisonment for one day and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 2 months on each of the three counts. The four accused, who are respondents in the revision, were prosecuted for the aforesaid offences on the following facts : 2. On receipt of prior information, Customs Officers, such as S.I. Lagali and S. 1. Gole, Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau, Bombay, set out on the sea in two police launches by name Yeshwanti and Kalika at about 8.30 p.m. on 19-12-1970, on petrol duty. When they were proceeding from Reti Bunder, they noticed by binoculars two sailing vessels proceeding in the direction of Kolsa Bunder from the side Dufferin ship. They immediately proceeded towards those vessels and intercepted them. It was found that the vessels were carrying packages containing foreign liquor. In one of the vessels, with which we are concerned in this case, the four respondents were present. Accused No. 1 was its Tindel while other three accused were said to be Khalasis. 3. On search of the vessel, it was found to contain 23 boxes of Johnnie Walker (red label) whisky, 23 similar boxes also containing foreign whiskey and 23 wooden boxes of Scotch Whiskey. The third vessel was also noticed and the same was also intercepted. It was found to contain foreign brand cigaretters. The contraband articles were seized under panchanama and sample of this liquor was taken and sent to the Chemical Analyser. The Chemical Analyser certified that it was foreign liquor. The third vessel was also noticed and the same was also intercepted. It was found to contain foreign brand cigaretters. The contraband articles were seized under panchanama and sample of this liquor was taken and sent to the Chemical Analyser. The Chemical Analyser certified that it was foreign liquor. Custom people were then contacted and they took charge of the property and recorded the statements of these accused persons after duly serving them with summons under section 108 of the Customs Act and after duly obtaining sanction from the Assistant Collector, the present prosecution was launched against the accused before the learned Magistrate. Some evidence was recorded by the prosecution and in the strength of the evidence, the learned Magistrate having found that there was prima facie ground to from a charge, framed a charge against the accused for the aforesaid offence. 4. When the accused were called upon to plead to the charge, they pleaded guilty. The learned Magistrate accepted their plea and imposed the aforesaid sentences. 5. On behalf of the State it was urged by Mrs. Shenoy that having regard to the gravity of the offence, the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate is unduly lenient. There is considerable force in this submission. It may, at the outset, be stated that for offence under section 5 read with section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. 1947, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and also fine and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be for less than six months. 6. Similarly, for the offence under section 135 of the Customs Act, the imprisonment which may extend to two years and fine or both has been provided for. It is, therefore, obvious that so far as the offence under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 was concerned, it was necessary for the learned Magistrate to give adequate and special reasons for not imposing the minimum sentence prescribed by section 5. No doubt, the learned Magistrate has given many reasons but it is a mockery to say that they are special and adequate. No doubt, the learned Magistrate has given many reasons but it is a mockery to say that they are special and adequate. The learned Magistrate has observed that these accused were merely seamen and were plying their vessel to earn daily wages and that they were not owners of the contraband. Besides it has also been observed that they were poor seamen who had risked the transportation of goods for small gain in the form of hire charges and that accused No. 1 was Tindel while the remaining three were merely khalasis and as such they could not have disobeyed the orders of the Tindel. According to the learned Magistrate, if, after having gone into midstream, they were called upon to load the contraband, they could not have refused to do so. Besides, the accused had no previous conviction and they were mere carriers driven to do the act to earn some small income by way of transport charges. The learned Magistrate also took into account the fact that under the Prohibition Act a separate case was also lodged against them and, therefore, they were likely to be convicted and sentenced separately in that case as well. 7. Now, at present, we are concerned with accused No. 3 only. The remaining three accused could not be served and, therefore, the case against accused No. 3, who has been served, has been separated from the other accused and, therefore, this revision is heard as against accused No. 3 only. 8. It was argued by Mr. Walawalkar with all the force at his command that the learned Magistrate having applied his mind on the question of sentence and given reasons for not imposing substantive sentence, this Court should be slow to interfere with the discretion of the lower Court. It is true that ordinarily the question of sentence is in the discretion of the trial Court and the Appellate Court is normally reluctant to interfere with such discretion but in the present case the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for not awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment appear to be ridiculous. The fact that these persons were merely seamen and were plying their vessel to earn daily wages or that they were not the owners of the contraband, can hardly be said to be sufficient ground not to impose substantive sentence of imprisonment. The fact that these persons were merely seamen and were plying their vessel to earn daily wages or that they were not the owners of the contraband, can hardly be said to be sufficient ground not to impose substantive sentence of imprisonment. After all, without the aid of such persons it would be impossible or rather difficult for person engaged in smuggling activities to carry out their activities successfully. So, such persons who help them, should be held equally responsible for the offence as the owner of the contraband goods would be held. Besides, there is no cogent evidence on record to hold that this accused as a poor seaman and had taken the risk of transportation for small gain in the form of hire charges. The reasoning of the learned Magistrate that this accused No. 3 was a Khalasi and, therefore, could not have disobeyed the orders of the Tindel in the mid-stream, also does not appeal to me because from the statement recorded under section 108 before the Customs Officer it is clear that this was not the first occasion that this accused was engaged in this activity but even before this he was engaged in smuggling such foreign and dutiable goods in a clandestine manner. The fact that another case is pending against this accused is hardly a circumstances which should excite sympathy for the accused. Besides there is no knowing whether that prosecution would ultimately end in conviction or not. The assumption made by the learned magistrate that since they are also separately prosecuted under the Prohibition Act, and therefore, on conviction in that case the total amount of fine that would be imposed would be considerable, has no basis. Lastly, the learned Magistrate observed that having regard to the youth and poverty of the accused persons and having regard to the fact that they were carriers of the contraband for hire this was a fit case for leniency but this reasoning also is, to say the least, ridiculous because accused No. 3 with whom I am presently concerned, is 40 years of age as he himself has stated in his statement recorded under section 108. Besides, as I have already pointed above, from that statement it is also clear that he was regularly engaged in such activities. Besides, as I have already pointed above, from that statement it is also clear that he was regularly engaged in such activities. In my view, therefore, the learned Magistrate was absolutely wrong in taking a lenient view in the matter of imposing sentence on the accused. On the other hand, in my view, such persons who help in smuggling contraband articles must be given deterrent sentence because, as already observed above, without the aid and assistance of such people it is almost impossible to carry on such activities. The application for enhancement of sentence as against accused No. 3, therefore, must succeed. The rule is, therefore, made absolute as against accused No. 3 and sentence of one days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- is enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for one and half year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, on each of the three counts. In default of payment of fine, accused No. 3 to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The substantive sentences to run concurrently. Warrant to issue immediately against accused No. 3 -----