JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal for the enhancement of the sentence has been filed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur against the accused convict Ram Chandra. Accused Ram Chandra was convicted under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. On appeal learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction However, vide his judgment dated 21.11-79, reduced the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- 2. Being aggrieved with the quantum of sentence this appeal has been preferred- 3. Learned counsel for the respondent had a right to arose the case even for the acquittal but, he has not argued the case on merits. Mr. Mathur submits that the sentence is inadequate. He has cited before me the case of, State of Karnataka v. Krishna and Raju ( 1987(1) SCC 538 ) , and submitted that the sentence awarded should be enhanced. 4. Mr. B.C. Jain appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the accused has undergone the agony of trial and pendency of appeal for a pretty long time. The incident relates to the year 1964 and, in the year 1988 the accused should not be sent to jail. He further submits that the sentence awarded is just and proper and will meet the ends of justice. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the record of the case. Accused h3s been convicted for having three Gold bars weighing 10 Tolas each. Neither the Court below nor the first appellate court has specifically mentioned under which clause of Section 135 of the Act the accused has been convicted Apartment question was asked to Mr. Mathur appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on this point and he has submitted that the accused has been convicted under clause (2) of Section 135. Under Clause (1) of Section 135 it is obligatory on the part of the Court in the absence of special or adequate reasons to the contrary, to be recorded in the judgment of the Court to pass the order of minimum sentence. Ordinary, the imprisonment shall not be less than six months. However, it is not the case under clause (2) (sic clause (1)) of sub-section (1). Ordinary, the imprisonment shall not be less than six months. However, it is not the case under clause (2) (sic clause (1)) of sub-section (1). Under Clause (2), the sentence as it stood at the time of the occurrence was only 2 years or with fine or with both. It is true that the white collar offenders should be dealt with iron hand. It is equally true that 24 years have elapsed, the law has changed and the conditions have also been changed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it proper that the accused should be sent to the jail again after a period of 24 years. It is true that in such cases, ordinarily the Magistrate or the appellate court should send the accused to jail so that there may be a deterrent effect on the smugglars. Taking note of the law which was there at the time of commission of crime, I do not consider it proper to send the accused to jail after 24 years. However, I consider it proper that the fine should be enhanced. 6. In the result, the appeal is accepted. The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to already undergone. The fine of Rs. 1,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-In default of payment of fine accused will have to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Two months time is allowed to pay the fine. In case the fine is not paid within two months, learned Magistrate shall issue warrant for the arrest of the accused to undergo the sentence awarded under default clause. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Appeal allowed. *******