Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Hon’ble Justice Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav of Bombay High Court in its judgement in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Yalappa Basappa Khot held that even if the accused pleaded guilty, courts are not empowered to impose a sentence below the minimum sentence prescribed in the given act passed by the legislature.
The complainant Mr. Bargaje who was officiating as government Labour Officer has filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 27/11/1997 submitting therein that as per the direction of the Supreme Court he had conducted survey work on child labour in the area and during the course of survey he found Mahesh Malkari, a boy aged 12 years working in the weaving process in the factory of the respondent occupier and therefore, he had arrived at a conclusion that the occupier has committed an offence by contravening section 3 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, which is punishable under section 14(1) of the said Act. During the trial, the accused pleaded guilty and hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate has convicted the accused on pleading guilty for the alleged offence and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1200/-.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the court, the state has filed an appeal. Learned APP pleaded that the learned Magistrate has failed to impose minimum fine completed by section 14 of the said Act and therefore, the state was constrained to file an appeal for enhancement.
The court found that the said complaint was filed in consonance with section 16 of the said act, more particularly, Form A of rule 16. It is pertinent to note that the respondent has admitted that he had engaged in child labour and therefore, is sentenced to less than minimum without assigning any special reasons. The language of part IV of section 14 of the said act would show that the word used is “shall not be less than rs. 20,000/- but it may extend to Rs. 50,000/-.”
Court further said that “there is no reason to award less than the minimum of the said fine imposed upon the respondent and hence, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Although the accused had pleaded guilty, so there is no reason for showing leniency, that the court is not empowered to award less than the minimum sentence only on the ground of the accused pleading guilty. It is for the court to impose an appropriate punishment which would not be less than the minimum, against the mandate of the legislature as completed under section 14 of the said Act.”
The appeal is allowed by the court and the respondent shall deposit an amount of Rs 18,800/- toward fine amount.
86540
103860
630
114
59824