ORDER Anna Chandy, J. 1. The accused in C.C. No. 455 of 1960 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate's Court, Ettumanoor, was convicted under S. 324, IPC. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The charge against him was that he beat Pw. 1 with a wooden stick on the head and hand and caused three injuries for which Pw. 1 was treated in the hospital for twelve days. The District Judge, Kottayam, on examination of the records found the fine of Rs. 10 merely nominal and wholly inadequate and reported for orders of this court under S. 438, Criminal Procedure Code, with a recommendation for enhancing the sentence. 2. Prima facie the penalty is not proportionate to the offence and the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason for the leniency. The advocate for the accused in showing cause why the sentence should not be enhanced argued for an acquittal and took me through the evidence. Both the Sub-magistrate and the District Magistrate had not adverted to the origin of the quarrel and the exchange of words between the accused and Pw. 1 which led up to the assault. Pw. 3 the eye-witness says that the first question put by the accused to Pw. 1 was "was it right that you should go to my house when myself and my father were not there, and tell my sister that you would take her away forcibly". Pw. 1 then retorted by saying "What if I did say so". So saying he went near the accused and caught hold of the accused's cloth and it was then that the actual beating by the accused took place. This version is not controverted and Pw. 3 is believed in toto by the Sub-Magistrate. 3. The apportionment of sentence in a case is left to the discretion of the trial judge. Unless it is grossly inadequate or perverse, superior courts are not to interfere. If a mitigating circumstance exists, the sentence may be reduced accordingly, but the reason for the leniency should be stated so that the appellate or revisional court can, by a persual of the records, adjudge the correctness or property of the order. Unless it is grossly inadequate or perverse, superior courts are not to interfere. If a mitigating circumstance exists, the sentence may be reduced accordingly, but the reason for the leniency should be stated so that the appellate or revisional court can, by a persual of the records, adjudge the correctness or property of the order. The circumstances under which the offence is committed is one of the factors that the court could take into consideration and in this casethe feeling of wrong which the accused could have justifiably entertained at the insult offered by P.W. 1 to his sister and the provocation afforded by P.W. 1. when the accused questioned him about it might have induced the accused to act as he did in a momentary impulse. These circumstances must have contributed to the lenient view taken by the Magistrate in the matter of punishment. However the learned Sub-Magistrate ought to have adverted to that in sentencing the accused to pay a nominal fine for a conviction under section 324, I.P. C. 4. I, therefore, do not feel that it is a fit case for enhancement of sentence. The learned Sub-Magistrate's order is confirmed and the reference is answered accordingly. But the learned Sub-Magistrate may be told that when leniency is shown in the matter of sentence reasons for the leniency have to be stated in the judgment.