STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KRISHNA ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals for enhancement of the sentences filed by the State of Gujarat are directed against the judgment and order dated 6-4-1983 rendered in two Criminal Cases No. 55 of 1983 and 56 of 1983 by the learned J.M.F.C., Gandevi, wherein the respondent "The Krishna Engineering Works" which came to be prosecuted for the alleged offence under Secs. 18 and 22 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short referred to as "the Act") in respect of the contravention of Rules 22, 26A, 26B, 26D of the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961 (for short "the Rules") pleaded guilty and was accordingly convicted for the same and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40.00 and in default to undergo S. I. for two days and eight days respectively in the two cases.

(2.) In short, it was the prosecution case that on 25-8-1982, Mr. M. D. Trivedi, Minimum Wages Inspector, Valsad, when in the course of his duty visited and inspected "The Krishna Engineering Works" at Bilimora of the ownership of Mr. K. N. Panchal, it was found that * with Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 1983 against the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (F. C.), Gandevi, in Criminal Case Nos. 55 and 56 of 1983. certain provisions of the Rules under the Act had been contravened in the manners such as : (i) when asked to produce the register of wages and attendance register as required to be kept under Rules 26D, the same was not produced; (ii) the attendance cards of the employees as required to be kept under Rule 26B were not kept; (iii) the inspection book which is required to be maintained under Rule 26A was not kept; (iv) notices containing minimum rates of wages fixed together with abstracts from the Act, the Rules made thereunder etc. not displayed as required under Rule 22 of the Rules. On the basis of these facts, Mr. M. D. Trivedi, the Inspector of Minimum Wages filed two complaints on 13-8-1982 against The Krishna Engineering Works, Bilimora, of the ownership of Mr. K. N. Panchal for the alleged contravention of Rules 22, 26A, 26B and 26D of the Rules read with Secs. 18 and 22 of the Act before the learned J.M.F.C., Gandevi, who after registering the same as criminal cases directed issuance of the summons against the accused. On 29-1-1983 in response to the summons issued, the accused appeared before the Court. However, the case was adjourned to 16-2-1983 for recording the plea of the accused. As usual, the proceedings went on being adjourned from time to time for recording mere plea of the accused, which was ultimately recorded on 6-4-1983. On that day the accused pleading guilty, he came to be convicted and sentenced for the alleged offences as stated in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, aggrieved by the said unduly lenient order of sentence, the State of Gujarat has filed these two appeals for enhancement of the sentences.

(3.) Mr. S. T. Mehta, the learned Addl. P. P. while challenging the impugned order sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 40.00 only, submitted that the same was unduly lenient and manifestly unjust taking into consideration the seriousness and gravity of the alleged contravention of the Rules. Mr. Mehta further submitted that imposition of such a small amount of fine was practically no punishment at all as the same cannot have any deterrent effect upon the accused. Mr. Mehta inviting attention of this Court to a decision in a case of State of Gujarat v. M/s. Pitolwala Auto Centre Co. and Anr., reported in 1979 Cri. LR 124 : 1979 GLR 605) submitted that as far back as in the year 1978 this Court (Coram : M. K. Shah, J.) has taken a view that "pleading guilty by itself is not sufficient ground for taking a too lenient view of the matter while awarding sentence, and yet we find that in number of such cases the same mistake of awarding a trivial sentence of fine on accused pleading guilty is surprisingly going on". Mr. Mehta further submitted that these are the cases wherein despite pleading guilty a serious view deserves to be taken and accordingly exemplary punishment must be inflicted upon the accused. Mr. S. T. Mehta finally submitted that the fine of Rs. 40.00 being ridiculously low must be enhanced to the maximum possible with a view not only to deter the accused from repeating the alleged offences in future but also to deter other factory owners from alighting the provisions of the Rules under the Act.