N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.
1. We think that the proper sentence for the Magistrate to have passed in this case would have been one of imprisonment. Such cases, where cocaine is found to have been secretly possessed and sold without a license, must be dealt with so as to produce a deterrent effect. At the same time we do not think we should enhance the sentence materially where a long time has elapsed since the decision of the Court below was passed.
2. In the present case Roger De Silva, who was accused No.1 in the Magistrate's Court, had been convicted in December 1910, and this application for enhancement of the sentence was made by Government to this Court on the 8th day of May 1911. No doubt, Government has to take some time after these cases have been brought to its notice, and, before it makes up its mind, it has to consult its legal advisers. But it is not necessary that Government should instruct the Government Pleader to move this Court to enhance a sentence. District Magistrates can bring to this Court's notice cases of inadequate sentence. Under our revisional powers, we have jurisdiction to enhance sentence howsoever the case comes to our notice. We think, therefore, that in this case the ends of justice will be sufficiently met by sentencing the accused Roger De Silva to imprisonment until the rising of the Court, in addition to the fine of Rs. 500 which was imposed upon him by the Magistrate. At the same time we wish to impress upon Magistrates the necessity of passing sentences of imprisonment in cocaine cases where a mere sentence of fine fails to check the evil of its illicit sale and possession.
3. The case of the other accused John Witeck (No. 2) need not be proceeded with any further as he is reported to have left Bombay and the rule has returned unserved as to him. The application as to him is accordingly rejected.