CR.A/655/1993 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 655 of 1993 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 SHYAMLAL KISHANLAL AGRAVAL - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : Mrs. Falguni Patel for Appellant. MR SV RAJU for Opponent. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 17/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The State of Gujarat has come by way of appeal for enhancement of sentence against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no.4, CR.A/655/1993 2/2 JUDGMENT Ahmedabad in Criminal Csse no.1717 of 1991 whereby, the learned Magistrate convicted the present respondent-original accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 21(1)(4)(6), 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. It may be noted here that the present respondent-original accused had pleaded guilty before the learned Magistrate. Heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Falguni Patel for the appellate-State and learned Counsel Mr. Raju for the respondent-original accused. Learned Counsel Mr. Raju has only contended that this is the first offence committed by the present respondent-original accused. This Court has gone through the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. The incident in question had taken place on 12th November, 1990. This is the first offence committed by the present-respondent. There is no minimum setence prescribed under the Factories Act for the offence in question. Considering these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (M.D.Shah,J.) lee.