Sentence enhancement requires clear reasons showing manifest inadequacy of the trial court's punishment; appellate increase was unsustainable.

Sentence enhancement on appeal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is justified only where the appellate court records strong, clearly stated reasons showing that the trial court's punishment was manifestly inadequate. A higher sentence cannot rest merely on the seriousness of the offence or a retracted confession, without a proper finding that sentencing discretion was wrongly exercised. On the facts noted, the record did not support interference with the original sentence, so the appellate enhancement was unsustainable and the trial court's sentence was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhancement of sentence imposed by the trial court under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was justified in the absence of special reasons showing that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate.

Analysis: The sentence imposed by the trial court had already reflected the proven guilt, and the appellate court was required to interfere with the quantum of sentence only for strong and clearly recorded reasons. Enhancement of punishment to a substantially higher term could not rest only on the general seriousness of the offence or the accused's retracted confession. The record did not disclose a proper finding that the trial court had exercised its sentencing discretion improperly or that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. In these circumstances, the appellate enhancement was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The enhancement of sentence was set aside and the sentence awarded by the trial court was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Sentence enhancement in appeal is justified only where the appellate court records strong reasons demonstrating that the trial court's sentence was manifestly inadequate and that interference is necessary on accepted judicial principles.

---