(1.) This appeal is filed by the State for enhancement of sentence. The respondent was tried for the offences punishable under sections 66(l)(b) and 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, as he was found by the police on 5.7.1983 carrying two bottles of foreign liquor in the dicky of his scooter and for the possession of which he did not have any pass or permit. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge; and on that basis, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 70/- for both the offences. The respondent is duly served, but has not remained present when this appeal was heard.
(2.) It appears that this is a case in which plea-bargaining has taken place. In all probability, the respondent would not have pleaded guilty to the charge unless he was promised that a lenient view regarding sentence would be taken. If the respondent had pleaded guilty to the charge without there being any promise of that sort, in absence of any extenuating circumstances, the learned Magistrate would have atleast awarded him the minimum sentence provided by the Act. No special or adequate reasons are given by the learned Magistrate for not awarding the minimum sentence. The record does not show that the accused had made any request to the Court to award him less than the minimum sentence. All these circumstances have led me to believe that this is a case of plea-bargaining. As held by the Supreme Court in Thippeswamy v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 747 , the proper course to be adopted in such a case would be to set aside the order of conviction and sentence and remand the case for a re-trial.
(3.) In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside, and the case is remanded to the learned Magistrate with a direction that the respondent be tried in accordance with law.