S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1983 (The Union of India through Central Excise Department v. Shri Jasbhai sb Shri Chhagan Rhai Patel and another and No. 99 of 1983 (The Union of India through Central Excise Department v. Shri Jasbhai sb Shri Chhagan Bhai Patel and another. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 97 of 1983 arise out of Criminal Case No. 760 of 1976 (State v. Jasbhai Patel and another) of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara, District Narsimhapur. Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1983 arises out of Criminal Case No. 759/76 (State v. Jasbhai Patel) of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara, District Narsimhapur. Thecriminal Appeal No. 99 of 1983 arises out of Criminal Case No. 757/76 (State v. Jasbhai Patel and another), of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Gadarwara, District Marsimhapur. ( 3 ) ALL these appeals have been filed by the Union of India against the respondents under Section 377 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentences. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of these appeals, Shri C. J. Patel who was respondent No. 2 in each of these appeals expired. It was, therefore, not disputed that these appeals as against respondent No. 2 stand abated. ( 5 ) IN all these cases, complaints had been filed on behalf of the Central Excise Department against respondent Jasbhai and deceased respondent C. J. Patel for contraventions under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the Rules made there under. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge framed in the respective cases. The trial Magistrate accepting that plea of guilty imposed fine of Rs. 250/- on each of the respondents in the respective cases. The trial Magistrate had imposed simple imprisonment also, but for different periods, in default of payment of fine. ( 6 ) IN Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1983, the prosecution allegations are that on 13. 1. 76 the Inspectors of Central Excise had raided the shop and bonded warehouse of the accused persons. It was then found that 15 bags of tabacco, weighing 592, 500 Kgs. from the bonded warehouse had been removed and sold without payment of excise duty which come to Rs. 1,777. 50. 1. 76 the Inspectors of Central Excise had raided the shop and bonded warehouse of the accused persons. It was then found that 15 bags of tabacco, weighing 592, 500 Kgs. from the bonded warehouse had been removed and sold without payment of excise duty which come to Rs. 1,777. 50. A departmental case was registered against the deceased respondent No. 2 and he was fined Rs. 100/- on 1. 3. 1976. ( 7 ) IN Criminal Appeal, No. 98 of N83 the prosecution allegations were that the Inspectors of the Central Excise Department on 17. 3. 1976 had raided the shop and bonded warehouse of the accused persons. It was found that the accused persons had removed 191 bags weighing 5722 kgs. of tabacco from the bonded warehouse and sold it without payment of central excise duty which comes to Rs. 17,166/ -. A departmental case was registered against deceased respondent No. 2 and he was fined Rs. 2,000/ -.( 8 ) IN Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1983, the prosecution allegations were that the Inspectors of Central Excise Departmental had raided the shop and bonded warehouse of the accused persons. As a result of that raid it was found that the accused persons had removed 31 bags weighing 1491 kgs of tabacco from the bonded warehouse and sold it without payment of excise dutyt which comes to Rs. 4,473/ -. In place of this tabacco, the accused persons has put 1,089. 900 kgs. of tabacco in the bonded warehouse regarding which no excise duty has been paid which comes to Rs. 3,269. 70. p. A departmental case. was registered against deceased respondent No. 2. He was fined Rs. 750/ -. ( 9 ) IT was a common ground that the contraventions in each one of these cases were of Rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules and of Section 9 of the Act, which are punishable under the said provisions. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents pointed out that in the departmental proceedings not only fine was imposed but even the duty as was chargeable on the goods involved in each one of these cases has been paid. Thus according to him, there is no less of revenue. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents pointed out that in the departmental proceedings not only fine was imposed but even the duty as was chargeable on the goods involved in each one of these cases has been paid. Thus according to him, there is no less of revenue. He further pointed out that even the present respondent is not financially well of and ultimately he may possibly be required to suffer the sentence if it is enhanced. ( 11 ) THESE cases are of the year 1976. The sentence, in my opinion, clearly erred on the side of leniency and the learned Magistrate seems to have been impressed by the fact that the respondents were pleading guilty to the charges. He does not seem to have applied his mind that these evasions of the duties which is chargeable under the law are seldom detected and so such cases warrant a deterrent punishment. However, the undue delay number of times Gomes in the way of imposition of appropriate sentence. This is besides other factors which may arise in an individual case for imposition of a lenient sentence. ( 12 ) HAVING considered, I do not now find any justification for imposing any jail sentence on the respondent. The amount of fine no doubt deserves to be suitable enhanced. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, these appeals are partly allowed. The amount of fine in each one of these appeals as has been imposed on respondent No. 1 Jasbhai is enhanced to an amount of Rs. 500/- (Rs. five Hundred), in each appeal, in default three months simple imprisonment. Since the respondent No. 2 is dead, the appeals as against him stand abated. .