(1.) The State of Mysore has moved this Court under S. 439 Cr.P.C. To enhance the sentence imposed on the respondent in C. C. No. 103 of 1958 on the file of the Munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Mercara. In that case respondent has been convicted under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a week.
(2.) The accusation against the respondent is that he caused the death of Basamma by administering to her on 27-1-57 at Nandigunda Village, Coorg District, some powder containing glucoside in a rash and negligent manner and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C. The learned Magistrate paragraph to have convicted him on his plea of guilty. If the offence is brought home against the accused the sentence imposed in this case undoubtedly calls for interference. It is suprising that the learned Magistrate thought that a fine of Rs. 10/- would be an adequate sentence for the offence in question. The learned Magistrate has made a mockery of law and has held it up to ridicule.
(3.) But Sri A. C. Nanjappa, the learned Counsel for the accused while not disputing that the sentence imposed is ridiculously lenient, urges that even if the entire evidence adduced against the accused is accepted as true, no case is made against his client. According to him the accused pleaded guilty only after he was assured of a lenient sentence. In other words the learned Magistrate is said to have bartered justice for disposal. If there is truth is this allegation, it is clearly reprehensible. In recent times several cases have come to the notice of this Court where the sentence imposed had no proportion to the offence committed by the accused, particularly in cases where the accused are said to have pleaded guilty to the charge. I should like to make it clear that there is no room for horse trading in matters judicial and this Court looks with strong disfavour any deviation from judicial approach in disposing cases.