STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. OSMAN SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S.377 of the CrlPC is preferred by the State to enhance she sentence awarded against the respondent Osman Sab for an offence punishable under S.4(i) & (ii) of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 ("the Act"). .

(2.) The accusation against the respondent was that he was running a hotel at Sundhal village in the taluk of Aurad. On 17-1-1976 at about 12-30 p.m. when the Police Sub-Inspector visited the hotel along with panchas, he found the respondent keeping the cups and saucers in an iron bucket tied with a rope in the corner of the hotel for the exclusive use of Harijans. On an enquiry in the presence of the Panchas, the respondent admitted that h had kept the cups and saucers only for the use of Hariians. Thereupon, the Police filed a charge sheet against the respondent for the offence punishable under S. 4 (i) and 4 (ii) of the Act in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurad. Before the Magistrate, the respondent pleaded guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate, while accepting the plea of guilty, convicted the respondent and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days.

(3.) There is no doubt that the sentence awarded against the respondent is ridiculously low. S. 4 of the Act provides punishment of six months imprisonment or with fine which may extend to Rs.500 or both. The Act is to provide punishment for the practice of untouchability and is intended to eradicate the social evil of untouchability in any form. Art. 17 of the Constitution provides that untouchabilitv is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable as provided under the Act. The provisions of the Act, therefore, must he strictly followed and the offence when proved, should not be lightlv dealt with. There should be proper punishment for any such offence, unless there is anv mitigating circumstance. In the instant case, having regard to the plea of guilty, the learned Magistrate ought not to have awarded a paltrv fine of Rs 2.