Judgment N.B. NAIK, J.:---This matter arises as a result of the suo motu action taken by this Court for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused after reading the newspaper report dated 25th November, 1976. 2. The facts giving rise to this proceeding are briefly these: The respondent-accused No. 1 Dharmavir Bhagwandas Kundra made an application dated 5th March, 1966 for an import licence for importing raw films. A licence Ex. C under export promotion scheme of the value of Rupees two lacs was issued to him on 31st March, 1966. Accused No. 1 thereafter made an application for issuing the letter of authority in favour of M/s. Kodak Ltd. for importing raw films covered by his licence. In pursuance of that application 4 letters of authority Ex. D were issued. Thereafter accused No. 1 opened a bank account in the Dena Bank. It was alleged that instead of using the material for his own purpose accused No. 1 thereafter appointed M/s. International Express Co. and M/s. S.M. Manikar and Sons as his clearing agents. After the goods were received they were disposed of to three different parties viz. (1) M/s. Kason, (2) M/s. Keshavram Surendranath and (3) D.D. Shah of M/s. Overseas Film Corporation. It may be mentioned that according to the prosecution the firm of M/s. Kodak Ltd. has imported photo roll films and unexposed cinema film including 8 mm. and 35 mm. of Kodoorome film and accused Nos. 1 and 2 were alleged to have sold that raw film to M/s. Kesharam Surendranath for Rs. 2,21,600/-. It may be mentioned that the import licence was intended for the production of a film called "Production No. 1" which was never produced. It is on these facts that the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, filed a complaint against the respondent and two others. 3. In support of its case before charge, the prosecution examined several witnesses. After the charge was framed under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, accused No. 1 pleaded guilty to the charge and filed an elaborate long drawn out written statement making out a case for leniency. 3. In support of its case before charge, the prosecution examined several witnesses. After the charge was framed under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, accused No. 1 pleaded guilty to the charge and filed an elaborate long drawn out written statement making out a case for leniency. In particular he stated that actually he was not a man concerned with the business of production of films and that he was actually in service and that he was tempted to apply for the licence in question as he was assured finances by some financiers and friends. To his utter disappointment he submitted that the financiers let him down and the funds were not available. He also submitted that he had not at all imported raw film of 35 mm. size and it is only films of 8 mm. and 16 mm. size which are used for a mature purposes were imported. He further stated that as a result of these transactions it was in a bid to minimise the loss that he disposed of the incentives and got a profit of hardly Rs. 40,000/- as, against that he said that in the 4 transactions the amount of Rs. 71,130/- being the total of the bonds executed by him was also forfeited. He also contended that there is no breach of the licence as such although he admitted that there is a breach of the term of the agreement as stipulated in the bond to fulfil the obligations. 4. The learned Magistrate took note of the submissions made by the accused in his long drawnout written statement and he set them out at length while dealing with the questions of leniency in the matter of awarding sentence. It is in that view of the matter that after convicting the accused under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 that the learned Magistrate sentenced the accused respondent to 1 days S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-. He directed that the case against the other two accused should be separated. 5. As I stated earlier as a result of a news of conviction and sentence appearing in the press this Court had taken suo motu action for enhancement of the sentence. 6. Mr. Godiwalla has appeared in support of the lenient view taken by the learned Magistrate. 7. Mr. 5. As I stated earlier as a result of a news of conviction and sentence appearing in the press this Court had taken suo motu action for enhancement of the sentence. 6. Mr. Godiwalla has appeared in support of the lenient view taken by the learned Magistrate. 7. Mr. Damle, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as it appears on the showing of the accused himself that he had made a profit of Rs. 40,000/- this Court may at least enhance the fine of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- while Mr. Godiwalla has drawn my attention to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of enhancement of sentence as laid down in (Shiv Govind v. State of M.P.)1, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1823, and (Kodavandi v. State of Kerala)2, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 467, Mr. Damle has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in (State of Maharashtra v. Dhupati)3, 66 Bom.L.R. 281. 8. Now section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 as it stood at the relevant time provided that if any person contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets a contravention of, any order made or deemed to have been made under this Act or any condition of a licence granted under any such order, he shall, without prejudice to any confiscation of penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and also with fine. 9. Provided that 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. 10. It would, therefore, appear that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be recorded in the judgment of the Court, the imprisonment would not be for less than six months. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Magistrate and the elaborate reasons given by him it could not be said that he has not complied with the requirements of the provisions for not awarding the minimum sentence of six months. After all as observed by the Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon by Mr. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Magistrate and the elaborate reasons given by him it could not be said that he has not complied with the requirements of the provisions for not awarding the minimum sentence of six months. After all as observed by the Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon by Mr. Godiwalla, the question of sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when that discretion, has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an Appellate Court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment. The Supreme Court has also observed in these rulings that in a matter of enhancement of sentence there should not be interference unless the sentence is, manifestly inadequate or unduly lenient in the particular circumstances of the case. As it could not be said in the circumstances of this case that the sentence is either manifestly inadequate or unduly lenient I do not think that I should interfere with the sentence which is awarded by the learned Magistrate. 11. In the result, the Rule is discharged. -----