Emperor Vs. Shankar Narayan Gosavi

sentence-sentence served out by deemed-reference to high court-high court can impose afresh sentence of imprisonment.;it is competent to the high court to impose an additional sentence of imprisonment on reference or revision, even where the accused has served out the sentence of imprisonment inflicted upon him by the lower court. - [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the act and if there is any violation in the exercise of the power, then the proper remedy is to lodge an appeal before the appellate authority. thirdly, even assuming that there is some breach in exercise of power s. 132(5) such breach is not so fatal as to warrant quashing the entire order. income tax act 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--order under s. 132(5)--validity of--seized assets handed over the commissionerincome tax act 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--reason to believe--commissioner considering extensive information and anonymous petitions and undertaking detailed scrutiny. income tax act 1961 s.132 - that is a totally different case from the present case where all the three accused were together and then one of them goas forward and brings the girl a comparatively short distance from her parents' house and then all the three force her to leave her guardian's house for good. i decline to hold that there is any such rule of practice or otherwise as would prevent us from passing a substantive period of imprisonment in a suitable case like the present.madgavkar, j.1. this is a reference by the district magistrate, of satara asking us to enhance the sentences under section 363 of the indian penal code on the three accused, shankar, datta-traya and dnyanu.2. on the evidence the facts are clear, the three accused conspired to kidnap a minor girl aged thirteen from the custody of her husband, accused nos. 1 and 2 with two servants waited outside the village and accused no. 3, who had most acquaintance with the girl, went to her with a, false message and took her to the other accused outside the village. she was then ordered to take off her ornaments and to accompany the accused to the village of mayani; and when she refused, they threatened to beat her and ultimately compelled her to go to that village. she remained there for twelve days before her husband obtained news and brought her back. in the interval accused nos. 1 and 2 purchased some musical instruments and brought them. there is no evidence that she was violated. it is clear that at the least the common object was that she should join a company of dancing gondhlie; for practical purposes the difference, at least after some time, would not be very great, a girl of thirteen or fourteen separated from her parents and her husband and going about with strangers as a gondhli would in all certainty become a loose character.3. on these facts we agree with the learned district magistrate that the sentence of one day's rigorous imprisonment passed on each of the accused with a fine of es, 50 in the case of accused nos. 1 and 2 and of rs. 100 in the case of accused no, 3 are entirely inadequate. we see no great difference between the criminality of each of the accused. the only thing to be said in their favour is that they are all about twenty years old and that no attempt on the girl's chastity appears actually to have been made. in addition to the sentence undergone and the fine, we impose a sentence in the case of each of the accused of six months' rigorous.....