V.K. KHADKE Vs. MANJULABAI VANJI CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision application raises a question about the scope and interpretation of Section 300 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) THE petitioner on behalf of Jalgaon Municipal Council filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, First Court, Jalgaon, against respondent No. 1 Manjulabai, complaining that she had committed offences punishable under Sections 189(8), (9), (10) as also under Section 181(3) of the Act. Manjulabai pleaded guilty. That plea was accepted and she was convicted. She was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default, simple imprisonment for three days. She was also directed to remove the unauthorised construction within fifteen days. The punishment prescribed by Section 181(3) is of fine only which may be extended to Rs. 100. The punishment prescribed under Section 189(9) Sub -sections (8) and (10) of Section 189 are not relevant for our purpose) is also of fine only which may be extended to Rs. 5,000. The grievance made in this application is that Section 300 of the Act prescribes a minimum sentence of fine, which is not less than one -fourth of the maximum amount of fine prescribed for the offence and if the fine prescribed for that offence is unlimited, it shall not be less than Rs. 250. But the learned trial Magistrate had not imposed the minimum fine prescribed. In the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, no fine less than the minimum could be imposed. The imposition of the fine of Rs. 25 is, therefore, illegal and it should be set aside.

(3.) THIS interpretation is in consonance with the language of Section 300. Although Section 300 opens with the clause: In every case in which a person is convicted for an offence punishable by or under this Act which may give the impression that the section is to be applied to every offence under the Act where there is a conviction, yet that clause is followed by the word 'and' and another clause which reads: the Court considers that he should be sentenced with fine only. The use of the word 'and' shows that both the clauses are to be read together and the cases to which the section is to be applied are required to be determined by reading both the clauses together. The use of the word 'then' at the end of the two clauses suggests that both the clauses must be satisfied before what follows after the word 'then' can be made applicable. In other words, both the clauses, as mentioned above, have to be satisfied for the applicability of Section 300.