JUDGMENT : D.P. Madan, J. The appellant was convicted by the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, under Sections 132 and 135(i)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellant/petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi, and his revision to the High Court also failed. So far as the merits are concerned, Mr. S B. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant has not sought to challenge the conviction of the appellant. His arguments have been confined purely to the question of sentence. The facts upon which Mr. Bhasme has relied are that the appellant is about 25 years old and that he left India for Frankfurt in West Germany when he was about 17 years old and since then has been residing at Frankfurt where he has a job. He is a non-resident Indian and he is married to a German Girl by whom he has a female child one year old. He has also obtained a work Visa in order to enable him to work in West Germany. According to him under the terms and condition of the said Visa on his absence for six months from West Germany, his Visa would stand cancelled. We are informed that this period of six months will expire on November 14, 1985. It is true that the appellant has been convicted of smuggling but the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shows be has no previous conviction, he is not a habitual smuggler. The learned Magistrate has not taken these facts into consideration in imposing on him a sentence of imprisonment of only six months. He was, however, not apprised of the facts which have been stated before us. The consequence of punishing a man for an offence committed by him cannot indirectly result in such person's almost certain permanent exile from the country in which be has made his home or bring about his permanent separation from his wife and child. He was, however, not apprised of the facts which have been stated before us. The consequence of punishing a man for an offence committed by him cannot indirectly result in such person's almost certain permanent exile from the country in which be has made his home or bring about his permanent separation from his wife and child. In the above special and exceptional facts of this case, while maintaining the conviction and the sentence of fine imposed upon the appellant, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. It is stated in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal that the fine of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid. If it so, the appellant shall be released forthwith. 2. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed.