JUDGMENT - B.N. DESHMUKH, J.:---This is States appeal against the order of sentence passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. The respondent was prosecuted under section 135(1)(b)(ii) read with section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. He was found in possession of foreign goods worth Rs. 27,694/-, which appeared to have been smuggled in this country without paying any duty. The accused has a shop and was found selling those goods at Shop No. 22 in Gandhi Market, Sion, Bombay. Since the accused admitted the guilty the only question that was decided by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was about the sentence. The Counsel for the accused pleaded for mercy and leniency on the ground that the accused was a petty trader and a first offender. He assured the Court that the accused has stopped dealing in such goods and will not conduct business in such goods hereafter. It was also pointed out that the accused had not himself imported the goods but appeared to have been unaware that such goods cannot be sold. One of the grounds urged also was that the value of the goods found was very moderate and the substantive sentence need not be imposed. Accepting these reasons placed before the learned Magistrate he sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 13,500/- or in default to suffer R.I. for three months. Being dissatisfied with this order, the State has filed this appeal. The learned Public Prosecutor read out to us the provisions of section 135 of the Customs Act. The legislature has divided the section into two compartments. After defining the offence, when it comes to sentence the legislature contemplates two different categories of offences. In one case the contraband articles are worth more than one lakh of rupees in terms of market value. In another category the goods are worth less than rupees one lakh so far as the market value is concerned. In the case of the earlier situation, the sentence provided extends to imprisonment upto seven years and with fine. There is a further proviso that in the absence of special and adequate reasons the substantive sentence shall not be less than six months. In the case of the earlier situation, the sentence provided extends to imprisonment upto seven years and with fine. There is a further proviso that in the absence of special and adequate reasons the substantive sentence shall not be less than six months. The legislature has also taken care to add sub-section (3) to section 135 by which what would not be adequate reasons for reducing the sentence to less than the minimum are also indicated. In other words where the case falls under Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 135, the Court can give a sentence of less than six months provided it is able to give special and adequate reasons which are different than those incorporated in sub-section (3) of the said section. The other category, viz., goods worth less then one lakh of rupees, is made punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. The first difference between the language of Clause (i) and the language of Clause (ii) is that whereas in the earlier case the substantive sentence must be imposed with or without the addition of fine, in the second case it is a discretion of the Court either to impose a substantive sentence or to impose a fine or to impose both. In what circumstances one of the three sentences prescribed by this Act should be imposed, is left to the discretion of the Court. Neither any minimum has been prescribed nor any reasons have been indicated which would not be treated adequate reasons for not granting a less than the minimum sentence. In the circumstances we are satisfied that this is a case where the Magistrate had a discretion to impose such sentence as he found adequate in the circumstances of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that some of the reasons given by the learned Magistrate like the accused being a first offender are no reasons in terms of sub-section (3) of section 135. We are not able to appreciate this argument for the simple reason that sub-section is not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Public Prosecutor then generally argued that the reasons given are not adequate. We are also not impressed by that argument. We are not able to appreciate this argument for the simple reason that sub-section is not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Public Prosecutor then generally argued that the reasons given are not adequate. We are also not impressed by that argument. Undoubtedly a shopkeeper using one gala of a Municipal Market in a suburb like Sion and stocking such goods as can be accommodated in that small place, must be considered to be a petty dealer or a small shopkeeper by the standards which are to be applied in this town. There is no dispute that this is the first offence of the accused. In addition the accused has shown repentance and if the learned Magistrate felt that in the circumstances he should merely impose a fine, we wonder whether that could be described as so gross a misuse of the discretion as to require rectification at the hands of the Appellate Court. The sentence in criminal case is normally in the discretion of the trial Court. However, it is a duty of any criminal Court to impose adequate and reasonable sentence. The sentence shall not be unduly harsh but it also cannot be unduly lenient. The only guiding principle is that the sum total of the circumstances must be taken into account and an adequate sentence imposed. In the circumstances before us, we do not see that the discretion has not been properly exercised by the learned trial Magistrate. We therefore refuse to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed. -----