STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BABU TAPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four respondents herein and one Babu Manji were the accused in Summary case No. 3539 of 1982 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot. They were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (hereinafter known as the Gambling Act). The learned Magistrate did not record any evidence whatever and convicted the accused under sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act on the plea of guilty pleaded by them and sentenced the accused No.1 to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, and sentenced the accused Nos. 1 to 5 to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each. It appears that the fine has beets paid up by the accused. It is pertinant to observe that the respective provisos to sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act provide for the minimum punishment, to wit, for a first offence the imprisoJiment to be of not less than one month and fine of not less than Rs. 200/-. The sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Magistrate, therefore, is not only inadequate, but it is against the provisions of the Gambling Act.

(2.) The State of Gujarat has preferred this enhancement appeal - accordingly.

(3.) Mr. D. K. Trivedi, the learned AddI. Public Prosecutor, urged before me that the punishment is required to be increased. Since it is inadquate and also as it is against the provisions of the Act which prescribes minimum punishment. Mr. Trivedi submitted that what could the learned Magistrate have done if the accused pleaded guilty? How was he required to take evidence in the matter if the accused themselves pleaded guilty by filing a purahis? I do not find any merit in this argument of Mr. Trivedi in view of the fact that plea bargaining is evident in this case as the sentence against the statutory provision of minimum punishment is inflicted without recording any evidence whatever. Under the circumstance therefore, the conviction cannot be allowed to stand against the accused.