.....by being declared the highest bidder, the remaining 6/16th share belonging to the other branch. [650 c-e] the asset in
question, viz, the sugar factory, at all material times remained a business asset. acquisition of the
interest of the other branch by the appellant did not alter the character or use of the asset; nor did it make any fundamental alteration in its value to the appellant so as wholly to displace its original value even in respect of its share which it continued to own. [654 b-d] the tribunal therefore, had rightly held that in respect of the 6/16th share of the other branch, depreciation had to be allowed to the appellant on the basis of the auction price. the
high court wrongly interfered with this finding the revenue not
having appealed a
gainst it. on the appellant's 10/16th share, which the appellant could not be said to have purchased, depreciation had to be calculated on the basis of original cost to the larger family. [654 e-g] case law discussed. - but
having regard to the
submissions made above, i feel the
interest of
justice will be
satisfied if the
sentence of
imprisonment imposed a
gainst the
petitioner is
reduced to the period already undergone and..........he was found in
possession of a quantity of eight litres of illicitly distilled arrack, an
intoxicant, in
contravention of
the provisions of the act and the rules made under the act. the learned judicial first class
magistrate convicted him and
sentenced him to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, which was the
minimum sentence that could be awarded
for an offence under section 34 (a) of the a.p. excise act. on an appeal preferred by the
respondent, the sessions judge, anantapur confirmed the
conviction and
sentence. the
respondent preferred a
revision petition before the
high court. the learned single judge who heard the
revision confirmed the
conviction. but, on the
question of sentence, he observed :mr. t. ramulu, appearing for the
petitioner who has filed this
revision through jail, has submitted that the
petitioner is aged 30 years and is a
first offender and he has already served a
sentence of about 10 months and that the
sentence may be
appropriately modified. it is true that
under the a.p, excise act, a statutory minimum sentence is
prescribed. but
having regard to the
submissions made above, i feel the
interest of justice will be
satisfied if the.....
ORDER
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.
1. The respondent was charged with an offence under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act on the allegation that he was found in possession of a quantity of eight litres of illicitly distilled arrack, an intoxicant, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made under the Act. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, which was the minimum sentence that could be awarded for an offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act. On an appeal preferred by the respondent, the Sessions Judge, Anantapur confirmed the conviction and sentence. The respondent preferred a revision petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the revision confirmed the conviction. But, on the question of sentence, he observed :
Mr. T. Ramulu, appearing for the petitioner who has filed this revision through jail, has submitted that the petitioner is aged 30 years and is a first offender and he has already served a sentence of about 10 months and that the sentence may be appropriately modified. It is true that under the A.P, Excise Act, a statutory minimum sentence is prescribed. But having regard to the submissions made above, I feel the interest of justice will be satisfied if the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone and if the fine of Rs. 50/-, imposed is set aside. The revision is dismissed subject to the modification as stated above.
2. We are unable to understand why the High Court reduced the sentence. The statute prescribes a minimum sentence. It does not provide for any exceptions and does not vest the Court with' any discretion to award a sentence below the prescribed minimum under any special circumstances. The learned judge has himself noticed that the sentence imposed is the statutory minimum. Having noticed that the statute prescribes a minimum sentence for the offence, the High Court has ununderstably reduced the sentence of imprisonment to less than the minimum permissible. The High Court was clearly in error in doing so. We think we have said enough to correct the error. It is unnecessary to pursue the matter further by granting special leave. The petition is dismissed with the above observations.