STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHAVIR PRASAD JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals for enhancement of sentence are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25-9-1981 rendered in Criminal Cases Nos. 954 and 955 of 1984, respectively by the learned J.M.F.C., Talaja, wherein one Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain, who came to be prosecuted for the alleged contravention of Secs. 29(l)(a) and 29(l)(b) read with Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 60(1) of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules'), on his allegedly pleading guilty, was convicted for the same and sentenced (separately by each of the two orders) to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00in default, S. I. for 20 days.

(2.) Briefly to summarise the prosecution case according to the complainant Mr. Y. N. Mehta, Factory Inspector, Bhavnagar, one Mahavir Prasad Jain, at the relevant time of the inspection was an occupier of a factory, namely, 'Jay Bharat Steel Co.' situated at Plot No. 6, Ship Breaking Yard, Alang. It further appears that for inquiring into some matter of fatal accident that took place on 14-6-1984, Mr. J. R. Parikh, another Factory Inspector visited the said factory on 19-6-1984, on making on the spot inspection, it was found out that the occupier of the said factory had contravened Secs. 29(l)(a) and 29(l)(b) of the Act and Rule 60(1) of the Rules. On the basis of these facts, Mr. Y. N. Mehta, Factory Inspector on 13-9-1984 filed two criminal complaints against Mahavir Prasad Jain before the learned J. M. F. C., Talaja, who after directing them to be registered as criminal cases, ordered issuance of summons, fixing the next date of hearing on 25-9- 1984. On 25-9-1984, accused appeared before the Court and as shown in Rojkam proceedings in the presence of the complainant pleaded guilty. This was accepted by the learned Magistrate and the accused came to be convicted and sentenced for the same as stated above in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present two appeals for enhancement of the sentence by the State of Gujarat.

(3.) Mr. S. T. Mehta, the learned A. P. P. appearing for the appellant- State while challenging the impugned order of sentence on the grounds of being illegal and inadequate has submitted before us that looking to the gravity and seriousness of offences, a meagre fine of Rs. 100.00 only imposed on accused was not only grossly inadequate but the same was also contrary to the statutory minimum punishment prescribed under Sec. 92 of the Act. The learned A. P. P. further submitted that the sentences for the alleged offences under Secs. 29(l)(a) and 29(l)(b) of the Act were prescribed in the proviso to Sec. 92 of the Act, which was to be not less than Rs. 1000.00. According to the learned A. P. P., merely because the accused pleaded guilty that by itself can never be a ground to award a sentence lesser than the statutory minimum prescribed under the Act. The learned A. P. P. further submitted that despite the fact that in the body of the complaint itself though the reference to the minimum sentence for the alleged offences had been expressly made, yet the learned Magistrate fur the reasons best known to him, ignoring the same has awarded a sentence of fine of Rs. 100.00 only, which per se was illegal being contrary to the express provisions of the law. The learned A. P. P. in the light of his above submissions finally urged that this appeal for the enhancement of sentence deserves to be allowed and accordingly the impugned order of sentence be suitably modified by enhancing the same making it consistent with minimum prescribed under the law.