CR.A/173/1989 1/3 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 CR.A/173/1989 2/3 JUDGMENT 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: “28. 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.” CR.A/173/1989 3/3 JUDGMENT 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.