Monk gets three years for smuggling tobacco
March 4, 2011Thimphu: The Thimphu district court yesterday sentenced the first Bhutanese to be charged under the tobacco control act to three years in prison. Sonam Tshering, a 23-year-old monk from Langpa in Haa was charged for smuggling tobacco products.
Sonam Tshering, a student of Semtokha Shedra in Thimphu, was travelling to Thimphu from Phuentsholing in a public transport bus on January 24 with 48 packets of chewing tobacco (Baba) when he was caught at the Chunzom check post between Thimphu and Paro. On interrogation, Sonam confessed to buying the tobacco for self-consumption.
The court charged Sonam Tshering for smuggling tobacco under the newly enacted Tobacco Control Act of Bhutan section 51, chapter 11 which states that any person found smuggling tobacco or tobacco products shall be guilty of the offence of smuggling and shall be punishable within minimum sentence of felony of the fourth degree, which is minimum of three and maximum of five years in prison.
The verdict states that Sonam Tshering failed to follow section 12 and 13 of the act, which state that a person importing tobacco and tobacco products for personal consumption should pay duties and taxes as specified in the rules, and a person may import tobacco and tobacco products for personal consumption according to the quantity approved by the tobacco control board.
A person is allowed to bring in 150 grams of tobacco a month after paying 200 percent sales tax and customs duty for products originating from countries other than India and 100 percent sales tax for those from India.
Sonam Tshering was carrying 480 grams of tobacco.
Although Sonam Tshering revealed the source from where he bought the tobacco, chapter 11, section 51 of the act, which states that a person shall be punishable with misdemeanor if the source of supply is revealed, could not be applied because he could not identify the place and the supplier could not be apprehended. Sonam Tshering bought his tobacco from the Indian border town of Jaigaon. The tobacco act is not clear on the source within the country and outside.
Sonam Tshering pleaded that he was ignorant of the law. But Drangpon B B Kalden said, “Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Ignorance of facts, to some extent, is an excuse and can be a defense under section 75 of the penal code but ignorance of the law is not an excuse.”
Asked why the court rejected the offer of a lawyer to represent Sonam Tshering, Drangpon B B Kalden said that the lawyer came to offer his service after the case had been closed. He said that when the case opened, Sonam Tshering chose to defend himself. The drangpon said that according to the Civil and Criminal Procedure Code, section 33, a person of sound mind, an adult, can choose whether to have his counsel or not.
Sonam Tshering was arrested following a tip-off from a person. The police immediately alerted the Chunzom check post.
Sonam Tshering had bought Nu 120 worth of tobacco for personal consumption. He had picked up the habit of chewing tobacco in 2010 from his friends.
He said in his statement to the police that, since his shedra was strict with tobacco products, he had bought one whole year’s stock from Phuentsholing.
Sonam Tshering has until 10 days to appeal to the High Court.
By Tandin Pem
10 Responses to “Monk gets three years for smuggling tobacco”
Leave a Reply
About Town
Nation
BO Forum Discussions
- Bhutan Observer discussion Forum • CABLE TV TO BE BANNED
- Bhutan Observer discussion Forum • BANNING DISH TV
- Bhutan Observer discussion Forum • Job of RO in Tsirang
- Bhutan Observer discussion Forum • Job of RO in Tsirang
- Bhutan Observer discussion Forum • Re: can we buy car now?
- Bhutan Observer discussion Forum • Re: Why so many misfortunes befall to Bhutanese?
- Bhutan Observer discussion Forum • Tobacco Control Act, should it be amended?
Well….Is 48 packets of tobacco worth its sentence to the victim/or the recent incident of the Lyonpo’s son harassing/abusing the lady staff of one of the office worth its freedom. Now is this what we call Democracy…
which literally means for the people, by the people…
isn’t it harsh to sentence him without any excuses…the rule should be firm in the monk case but in the lyonpo’s son’s case the rule seems to be gentle and flexibility.
Aren’t the two people from the same nation under one law.
or is it different for havs and hav-nots….We the people are somehow not happy with the courts decision because whoever made it, they differ none from a corrupted justice. If the tobacco is banned then ban it wholly without permitting to import? The reasons are simple…
why did the government banned the Tobacco and made the public places smoke free zone? The answer is to save other non-smokers from its bad affects. Now the question arises here…Why are those people allowed to smoke their imported Ciggarettes in a smoking room? that also to save its bad affects harming the non-smokers….!!!well, well…let’s think scientifically…aren’t the smokes coming out from those smokers going to air, even if they are smoking in his/her private room or the one imported are manufactured in such a way that when someone puffs it gives oxygen and other helpful gases needed by us…?
Think Think..it is time to rethink? In my view he should be fined in first parallel to encouraging him to quit such things…I do understand the harmful affects but it is sad to know that the Govt. targets only low grade people…where are those law enforcers? I can see plenty of people smoking and driving with their windows open, living us to inhale its bad smoke….SO SAD!!! if the Government is like this in the first few years of its ruling…then think how worse it will be after few years?
Let’s Save the Monk from his sentence although he deserves to be punished…but not in the form of dictatorship??? I can see plenty of people be it rich or poor, rich being the majority…smoking in all the places and even the law enforcers themselves…but where is the bright pair of eyes of the law that sees all direction with one dignity.
Now friends, if u think i am wrong…then please kindly spare your few precious time in answering this..
Which one is severe a) the harassment/abuse done to the office lady staff by the Minister’s son or the monk found in possession with Tobacco for his self consumption( as per his statement)….if the answer is second, then What is our law and National Commission of Women’s Children useful for? What is the use of the National Women’s Association? What are they for and why are they established? What does GNHC stands for? i don’t want to Comment much on GNH because it is truly an heart embodiment of our 4th Druk Gyalpo and 5th Druk Gyalpo purely meant for the well beings for our nation and its people….but I hate those politicians who make advantage of GNHC and making it a bad name…but never mind GNH is pure crystal clear diamond where it will keep shining ever in our heart because we love our kings as much as they bestow their own life to us.
- Go check with the Revenue and Customs office how many people have paid for the receipts so far, especially those with money and power.
- Go check out the clubs where the places are sworming with people smoking during party nights.
- Tobacco products are still easily available but of course at a higher price. Those shops who used to sell are still selling, the only difference being the secrecy.
- Go check how the dignitaries are allowed to pass through the customs counter at the airport without even checking. A major chunk of tobacco products comes through that gateway hidden in their bags.
- If the monk was Lyonpo Zangley’s son, he would have been let go and the matter would have been hushed up and would have never surfaced. Had the monk (not in the position of the Lyonpo’s son) assualted the HRO of DGPC, then he would have got a heavy sentence.
- How many of the law makers themselves smoke and chew? How do they manage not to miss their hourly/daily dosage?
- The BBS reporting about the checking rounds being made by the Narcotics officials and Police was just a show to the eyes.
- I won’t be surprised one day if oridnary citizens drag rich, powerful and the law makers themselves to the police station after catching them red handed and with ample proof and evidence of handling and consuming tobacco products.
I would have really liked if the monk is made to do some kind of social service not sentence him to three years prison. Three years seem long and harsh. I strongly wish he is made to do Social Service and not make him stay in the prison.
Yes, this is the law of the land and the monk was a victim of the draconian law. I empathise with him but this is what the court pronounced. Whether it was fair or not court’s ruling remains final and binding.
What is ridiculous is the fact that the so called educated members of parliaments can go to the extent of interfering in to an individual’s private lives. Aren’t there other developmental and social issues for our parliamentarians to focus on?
In the understandable effort to be fair to all, laws that are not well thought out end up being unfair to all.
Jeffersonian democratic ideals notwithstanding, all people are not create equal: we all have different physical, mental, psychological, emotional, and other needs and proclivities. Laws (in any nation) that allow for no judicial discretion are inhumane and, hence, unjust.
Instead of jailing the poor monk, he should have been provided with medical attention to get rid of his addiction to smoking. THAT would have been enlightened justice.
And you are at it, get rid of the “mandatory minimum sentences” in your laws; instead, appoint only enlightened, informed, and enlightened judges.
Hi country folks, it is the time to test the pros and cons of democracy and the rule of law.Let not the democratic govt.go by “All are equal but some are more equal than others.”
We are witnessing the growing pains of young democracies…
In theory, the process of having an elected legislative body that passes laws, and a (hopefully) independent judicial body that ensures that such laws are equitably enforced, is ideal.
In practice, it is inescapably flawed in numerous ways:
-1. The voting electorate is usually not sufficiently informed, and votes for the most charming candidate and not the most qualified one. As a result, the laws that get passed by such unqualified lawmakers are often flawed.
-2. The members of the judicial bodies are often not wise like King Solomon (of Biblical fame), and merely apply the flawed law. Even a Supreme Court is merely supposed to ensure that a law is constitutional and not to decide on whether the law is unwise or not.
-3. The executive part of the government (the third branch, after the legislative and the judicial), merely adopts a “hands off” approach, lest it be accused of interfering with either of the other two branches of government.
In this model, there is no room for fixing flawed laws -let alone for preventing their passage in the first place-. This sad phenomenon is observed in even the most mature democracies as well. In the US, for example, it is all too common to have an emotion-driven electorate (a.k.a. a mob) pressure the lawmakers to pass laws that sooth the electorate’s emotions of the moment. The courts dutifully apply those laws, and nobody is too concerned that such laws are unwise or capricious.
In the present case in Bhutan, the government wisely wanted to prevent people from smoking. This is commendable and in everybody’s best interest. The problem came about when draconian penalties unwisely became part of that law. Lawmakers forgot that penalties have to be proportional to a crime. If you put a monk who smuggled tobacco for his own personal use, in jail for three years, then how can you justify imposing a similar penalty for bank robber or a rapist or a murderer?
I respectfully submit that the argument that “well, that is what the law says, and the law was voted on by democratically elected representatives of the people” is unsatisfactory because of arguments 1-3 above.
So what is the fix, then, without undermining the essence of democracy?
I believe that the answer is in having flexible laws in place of rigid laws, where the flexibility is vested in the authority of wise and highly qualified judges who are empowered to take into consideration extenuating circumstances before deciding on a penalty that makes sense.
there are still many people who sells tobacco or many officer who’s lips are filled by BABA. Some of them are police, who pretent to protect from consuming BABA. They are not patriotic person. just punishing other and not reading your behavoir. These types of peoples are just giving problems to governments, taking monthly salary. if u are really patriotic, treat equally. whay the punishment is only to simple and poor peaples? why not to Lynpo’s soon and all..? Punishment is particularly to monk, not to other such as shop keeper who sells tobacco, bcoz our country is Buddhist country and trying to let other cpuntries people to know how bads are monks. No one is remembering monk’s gratitude in this country. why only monks are punishing though many people are comsuming tobacco???
nice comment!