Case Law Details
Muneesh Suneja Vs Chief Enforcement Officer (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Punjab & Haryana High Court held that as the initial recovery against the co-accused stands acquitted, enhancement of sentence of the petitioner who was nominated on their statements becomes unsustainable in law.
Facts- Challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment dated 08.12.2016 passed by the lower appellate Court, vide which appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2014, holding him guilty of offence under Section 8(1) & 8(2) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (for short ‘FERA’) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of three months, was dismissed, whereas another appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence was allowed and the petitioner was directed to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of two months under Section 56 of FERA.
Conclusion- A perusal of the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court would show that no special reasons have been assigned to make out a case for enhancement of the sentence. In view of judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Govind’s case, the lower appellate Court was required to record a finding that the trial Court, while awarding the sentence of six months R.I., has not properly exercised its discretion and the lower appellate Court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused, except for strong reasons, which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment, however, no such reasons have been assigned, therefore, this Court finds that enhancement of sentence is not justified.
The lower appellate Court failed to consider that the initial recovery was from co-accused Rakesh Kumar and Sanjay, who stand acquitted vide judgment dated 19.02.2011 and prosecution never challenged their acquittal before higher Court. The petitioner was nominated on their statements and once they were acquitted, the link to convict the petitioner was not proved. Therefore, the enhancement of sentence was not justified.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
