STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. ANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this appeal against the sentence passed by the JMFC at Aland in C.C. No. 298 of 1984, dated 10/10/1986. The State is aggrieved by that part of the order whereby the learned Magistrate has only imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- against each of the respondents by way of punishment for commission of an offence punishable u/S.4 (i) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The State contends that having regard to the provisions of S. 4 of the Act, there was no discretion left in the Court to award only a sentence of fine without imposing the statutorily prescribed minimum substantive sentence.

(2.) Respondent-2 is the son of respondent-1. The charge against them is that on 5-8-1984 at about 12-30 p.m. at Tadkal village they failed to supply water and tea to C.Ws. 1 to 4 since they were members of Holeya community. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the charge against the respondents was made out for an offence u/ S. 4(1) of the Act but held that a sentence of fine of Rs. 250/- would meet the ends of justice. It appears that the learned Magistrate did not notice the amendment to S. 4 of the Act by Act No. 106 of 1976 which came into effect from 19-11-1976.

(3.) The only question urged before us by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is that in view of the amended S. 4 of the Act, there is no discretion left in the Court to award a sentence of fine only, and that in view of the clear provisions of S. 4 of the Act the Court is obliged to pass a substantive sentence of imprisonment, not less than a term of one month, and also a sentence of fine not less than Rs. 100/-. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents contended that notwithstanding the amendment, the Court is still left with the discretion either to impose a substantive sentence of imprisonment or only a sentence of fine. He has not challenged the finding of guilt recorded against the respondents.