Judgment : This appeal is filed by the State to enhance the sentence on the respondent-accused. The accused faced a trial before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in C.C. No. 6581 of 1972 for an offence under section 23-F of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, for contravention of section 12 (2) of the said Act. He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 750 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The instant appeal is to enhance the said sentence imposed on the accused. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows: The accused is a partner of M|s. Sriram Venkatasubba Rao and Sons, 6th Lane, Gunturivari Thota, Guntur-1, Andhra Pradesh. According to P.W. 1, Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, the accused failed to pay within 45 days, in spite of reminder notice, the penalty of Rs. 40,000 imposed on him by the Director, of Enforcement, in his order of Adjudication No. IV 168-67, dated 30th December, 1967, Exhibit P-1, for contravention of section 12 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, for having failed to realise the balance export proceeds amounting to £ 14,080-12 S-9 D in respect of the shipment of tobacco made by the firm of the accused to Australia during the years 1951-54 under cover of GRT Form Nos. 419536, 419537. 543234, 331538, 543233 and 419538. It is also seen that the accused has signed GRT forms and collected Exhibit P-6 series of invoices as partner of the said firm. 3. On the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused, when he was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated that the business of Sriram Venkatasubba Rao and Sons was never run as a partnership firm and that he was not a partner in any such business. The business of Sriram Venkata Subba Rao and Sons was run by one Sriram Venkatasubba Rao, the father of the accused, as a ‘kartha’ of the Hindu undivided family in which the accused was one of the members. He had not taken any active part in such business. He further stated that the assessment orders of the Income-tax Authorities, Guntur, have all been passed treating the status of the said business as a Hindu undivided family with two major members. He had not taken any active part in such business. He further stated that the assessment orders of the Income-tax Authorities, Guntur, have all been passed treating the status of the said business as a Hindu undivided family with two major members. The Enforcement Directorate has passed an order which is not binding on the accused. He stated that he was not liable to pay any penalty imposed on him. He has also filed a written statement. He examined one witness on his behalf. 4. It is not disputed that the Reserve Bank of India reported to the Enforcement Directorate that M|s. Sriram Venkatasubba Rao and Sons, Guntur, made several shipments of tobacco to Australia during the years 1951-54. From the sales of these shipments, the firm had made deductions from their invoice price in respect of five shipments and drew the balance. The amounts were shown as payments to certain companies in Sydney. The shippers were never given permission by the Reserve Rank of India to make such payments out of the export proceeds realisable by them. The payments also were not disclosed as to their purpose. According to the prosecution, the total export proceeds not brought to this country comes to 14, 80£ 12sh. 9d. in Australian currency. On 25th June, 1966, the Directorate issued a show cause notice to M|s. Sriram Venkatasubba Rao and Sons under section 12 (2) of the Act and in spite of the notice, the party failed to appear on the hearing dates. As the accused has contravened the provisions of section 12 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the penalty of Rs. 40,000 under section 23(1)(a) of the Act was imposed by the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi This penalty had to be paid within 45 days and the accused had failed to pay it. 5. It was contended in the trial Court that the accused was not a partner of M/s. Sriram Venkatasubba Rao and Sons and it was not run as a partnership basis and any order issued to the firm is not binding on the accused including the penalty imposed on him. 6. The gist of the offence is failure to pay the penalty imposed by the Directorate and the Court is not called upon to go behind the levy of penalty. 6. The gist of the offence is failure to pay the penalty imposed by the Directorate and the Court is not called upon to go behind the levy of penalty. It has to be gone into on an appeal under section 23-F on a question of law to the High Court. Section 23-F is only provided for the enforcement of collection of penalty on disobedience of the directions or orders of the Director. It comes into force only after the adjudication proceedings ended and in levy of penalty. Section 23-F is not intended to qualify or affect in any way the nature and the character of the proceedings. The accused had not appeared before the Enforcement Director at all. He has preferred an appeal to the Appellate Board on the main ground that he was not a partner of M/s. Sriram Venkatasubba Rao and Sons. But the appeal was dismissed. The Directorate issued a further notice Exhibit P-7 to the accused that the appeal preferred by him had been dismissed and asking him to pay the penalty within 20 days from the date of the receipt of the letter. The accused replied in Exhibit P-8, dated 23rd August, 1971, stating that he had no means to pay the amount. He did not refer to his earlier contentions that he was not liable to pay the amounts. On the letters Exhibits P-4 and P-5 and the GRI forms Exhibit P-6, it is clear that the accused had signed as partner of the firm. The accused is not entitled on the face of the documentary evidence to contend that he is not a partner of the firm. The lower Court is justified, on the materials placed by the prosecution, in holding that the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 23-F of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, corresponding to section 57 of the said Act, 1973. 7. As the trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 750 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, the State hay preferred this appeal for enhancement as the offence is an economic offence and a serious one and the sentence imposed by the lower Court is grossly inadequate. In support of his contention Mr. 7. As the trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 750 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, the State hay preferred this appeal for enhancement as the offence is an economic offence and a serious one and the sentence imposed by the lower Court is grossly inadequate. In support of his contention Mr. C. Krishnan, the learned Central Government Prosecutor, cited before me the decision of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Balakrishna v. West Bengal1, wherein their Lordships have held: “The new horizons in penal treatment with hopeful hues of correction and rehabilitation are statutorily embodied in India in some special enactments; but crimes professionally committed by deceptively respectable members of the community by inflicting severe trauma on the health and wealth of the nation-and the members of this neo criminal tribe are rapidly escalating from a deterrent exemption to humane softness in sentencing.” They further held: “In the extreme category of professional economic offenders, incarceration is peculiarly potent. When all is said and done, the offences for which the appellant has been convicted are typical of respectable racketeers, who, tempted by the heavy payoff face the perils of the law and hope that they could smuggle on a large scale and even if struck by the Court they could get a way with a light blow.” 8. Ordinarily, the matter of sentence is at the discretion of the trial Court. Unless the sentence is so inadequate as to offend the ordinary notions of what justice demands by way of just punishment, this Court does not enhance the punishment already imposed. On enhancing the sentence, this Court is slow to interfere if the lower Court has properly assessed the circumstances and exercised its judicial discretion. Interference is warranted only if it is manifestly inadequate. If the trial Court has failed to take into account all relevant circumstances in awarding the sentence and where there is miscarriage of justice, this Court interferes to enhance the punishment in the interests of justice. 9. The accused was convicted for an offence under section 23-F of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 for non-realisation of export proceeds by M/s. Sriram Venkatasubba Rao and Sons during the years 1951-54. After the demise of his father, the business itself was closed in 1957. 9. The accused was convicted for an offence under section 23-F of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 for non-realisation of export proceeds by M/s. Sriram Venkatasubba Rao and Sons during the years 1951-54. After the demise of his father, the business itself was closed in 1957. When the business was in full swing in 1953-54, the accused was a youngster studying as a student. He would have had no knowledge about the intricacies of the business transactions. He is now holding a small grape-yard belonging to his wife which yields an income of Rs. 2,000 per year. There is no other source of income for him. He heads a family of nine members of which six are school going children. He is a blood-pressure patient requiring constant medical help. His wife is also sickly. This offence has taken place nearly 30 years back. At this distance of time, it is not necessary, taking the further attendant circumstances into consideration, to enhance the sentence imposed on the accused. At any rate, the sentence is not so inadequate as to warrant my interference at this stage. Even in the case cited by the learned Central Government Prosecutor, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have said that penal treatment should be tailored to the individual and penal strategy must be informed by social circumstances, individual factors and the character of the crime. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the State for enhancement is dismissed.