Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/173/1989 2/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 173 of 1989
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
OSWAL
ICECREAM & 2 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJ DESAI, APP for Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s)
: 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 24/06/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
appellant-State has preferred this appeal for enhancement of sentence
awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedabad
dated 17.10.1988 in Criminal Case No. 5009 of 1987 whereby the
learned Magistrate has ordered each of the respondent accused to pay
a fine of Rs.20/- only and in default to undergo simple imprisonment
of two days each for the offence punishable under Sections 19, 26
and 27(4) of Payment of Bonus Act read with 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) of
the Bonus Rules as all the respondents pleaded guilty.
2. Heard
learned APP Mr.A.J.Desai, for the appellant ? State. Though
served, nobody has remained present before this Court. The complaint
was lodged on 1.4.1987. Mr.Desai has submitted that, in such kind of
cases, the sentence awarded is quite inadequate.
3. Section
28 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1965 is reproduced below:
?S28.
Penalty.–If any person–
(a) contravenes
any of the provisions of this ? Act or any rule made thereunder;
or
(b) to
whom a direction is given or a requisition is made under this
Act fails to comply with the direction or requisition,
he
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both.??
As
per the above Section, if any person contravenes the provisions of
the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both.
4. In
the present case, the learned Magistrate has imposed a fine of
Rs.20/- only on each of the respondent accused and sentenced them to
undergo simple imprisonment of two months, in default of payment of
the same. Taking this fact into consideration as a technical aspect
and that the appeal is of the year 1989, in the opinion of this
Court, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly
dismissed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.
(M.D.Shah,
J.)
Sreeram.
Top