VINOD B CHABRIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay passed on 17-1-1995 confirming the order of Metropolitan Magistrates 29th Court, Dadar, Bombay and dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 1994 filed by the petitioner is challenged.

(2.) THE petitioner was found by the Inspector of Factories carrying on manufacturing process with the aid of power in the form of electricity and 18 labourers manufacturing playing cards on 5-9-1992 when the petitioners factory was inspected by the Inspector of Factories. The petitioner was, therefore, prosecuted for offence under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 4 (4) of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963. The accused pleaded guilty and prayed for leniency before the Magistrate. It seems that the learned Magistrate accepted the plea of guilt of the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default to suffer RI for eight months by order dated 24-8-1994. Copy of the said order is not annexed to this petition. The petitioner challenged the said order in Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 1994 before the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay on the ground that the Magistrate having power to impose sentence of fine upto Rs. 5000/- exceeded his jurisdiction.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that under section 29 (2) of Cri. P. C. read with sub-section (4) thereof there is a limitation on the power of the Metropolitan Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or of fine not exceeding five thousand rupees, or of both. In case the Magistrate is of the opinion that the accused found guilty by him ought to receive punishment more severe than that Magistrate is empowered to inflict, he can record his opinion and submit the proceedings and forward the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom he is subordinate under section 325 of Cri. P. C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate on being submitted the proceedings by any Metropolitan Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, examine the parties and recall and examine any witness who has already given evidence in the case, and may call for and take any further evidence and pass appropriate judgment, sentence or order as he thinks fit in accordance with law.