1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.515/2005 Employees State Insurance vs. Ganesh Ram Corporation Date of Order ::::: February 9,2009 Present HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. A.S.Khangarot for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Mehrish for the respondent The respondent Ganesh Ram is the employee of M/s. Rajasthan Textiles Mills, Bhawani Mandi who is covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). A complaint was lodged by the petitioner through the Manager, Branch Office, Bhawani Mandi against the respondent under Section 84 of the Act. The trial Magistrate i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi summoned the accused respondent and on 14.1.2005 the accused respondent appeared before the trial Magistrate. He pleaded guilty in the spirit of Lok Adalat, therefore, the trial Magistrate instead of sentencing him imposed 2 penalty of Rs.100/- to be paid as prosecution charges and Rs.100/- as compensation to the complainant. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved of the order passed by the trial Magistrate on 14.1.2005. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 84 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to six months or with fine not exceeding two thousand rupees, or with both and looking to the gravity of the offence the Magistrate should have sentenced the accused respondent more severely as many cases of similar nature are pending against other persons also and it would give otherwise impact in the general public. Learned counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned order submits no interference is required to be called for in the impugned order by this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned order. 3 The impugned order dated 14.1.2005 reveals that the accused respondent has been convicted and sentenced in view of fact that in the spirit of Lok Adalat the accused respondent on the first date of appearance pleaded guilty for the offence charged. This is his first offence and the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to six months or with fine not exceeding two thousand rupees, or with both. The trial Magistrate on the basis of pleading guilty by the accused respondent, has convicted and imposed fine upon him. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the trial Magistrate has abused the process of law or has acted against the interest of justice as looking to the nature and gravity of the offence he has used his discretion by not imposing a substantive sentence and I find no illegality in the order. Consequently, this misc. petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. (Bhanwaroo Khan),J. bairwa 4