The District court rules that a person is not a repeat offender. And a High Court Bench upholds the lower court ruling. Now the OAG lawyer want to appeal to Full Bench High Court ( news courtesty Kuensel ). And probably to Supreme Court if again upheld.
A lady was caugtht by tobacco inspectors with permissible number of cigarette sticks but without proper tax payment receipt and was fined by the inspectors. Three month later, she was again caught with less quantity but chsrged in the court. Both times, she claimed it was for personal consumption and the quantity was within the legally defined personal consumption quantity.
The Dzongkhag Court sentenced the lady to 3 months prison term for failing to produce tax receipt for tobacco purchase and in lieu of prison term, she was ordered to pay cash fine.
The prosecuting lawyer wants her to serve the prison term as a repeat offender. By law, a repeat offender is someone convicted earlier by a court of law. And not by an administrative Agency like Tobacco Authority or an ad hoc court like the roving team of tobacco inspectors in the field. .
According to the percept of the Prosecuting lawyer from OAG, the second time you commit a traffic offence or breach any regulations , the offender has to serve prison term because it is a repeat offence.
Terrible intent pursued on the pretext of serving justice? Seems a waste of time, knowledge, money and display of arrogrance towards the justice system. Maybe there is a professional enmity between the lawyer from OAG and the Judge in the District court or personal differences between the offender and the prosecutor. I would heave a sigh of relief if an OAG lawyer does not appear to be vindictive.
No comments:
Post a Comment