EMPEROR Vs. KARSANDAS NANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Government to enhance the sentence passed on accused No.1 under Sections 4(a) and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act.

(2.) THE accused has exercised his right of challenging his conviction, but L think the conviction was justified by the evidence. [After discussing the evidence in the case his Lordship proceeded] : THE learned Magistrate fined the accused Rs. 100, in default seven weeks' rigorous imprisonment, and Government have applied to enhance the sentence, and have argued that as a matter of law the learned Magistrate should have imposed the minimum fine of Rs. 500. Section 4(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act provides that for a first offence under the section the punishment shall be imprisonment which may extend to seven months, or fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000, or both. THEn there is a proviso that in the absence of special reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one month and fine shall not be less than Rs. 500. THE special reason which the learned Magistrate gives in this case, and which he has emphasized in his report made under Section 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is that he considered that the accused was not in a position to pay so heavy a fine as Rs. 500 and that to impose a fine of that magnitude would mean that the accused would have to go to prison in default of payment.

(3.) THE fine which the learned Magistrate has inflicted in this case, namely Rs. 100, is a substantial fine for a man who is not wealthy, and in my view there is no ground on which we ought to enhance the sentence. THE application, therefore, is rejected, and the rule discharged.