EMPEROR Vs. PETER DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case referred to us to this full bench raises a very short question of construction of Section 43 of the Abkari Act. Section 43 of the Act before it was amended contained the penal provision in the following term : Shall, on conviction, be punished for each such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. " THE amendment altered the penal provision to read as follows: Shall, on conviction, be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000: Provided 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 three months and fine shall not be less than Rs. 500.

(2.) NOW, it is contended by the Government Pleader that, inasmuch as the word '"or" has been replaced by "and" the sentence for the first offence has been made cumulative. In other words, it is obligatory upon the Court to impose upon the accused both the sentence of imprisonment and the sentence of fine. Although the Legislature has altered "or" to "and", it is also significant that it has altered the expression "punished" for the expression "punishable. " Therefore, on a conviction, the accused is not necessarily to be punished with the imprisonment of six months and with a fine; but he is punishable, or liable to be punished, with imprisonment of six months and with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000. Therefore, "punishable" imports discretion, and it is left to the discretion of the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment or a sentence of fine or both. "imprisonment and fine" in this context must and does mean "imprisonment and or fine. "

(3.) SIMILARLY, here, the imprisonment of six months and the fine of Rs. 1,000 are not cumulative sentences, but sentences to be inflicted according to the discretion of the Court.