JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is a petition by the State of Orissa for enhancement of the sentence passed on the opposite parties for their conviction under Sections 148 and 426, Indian Penal Code. 2. One S. Ahmad, a job-clerk in Rourkela lodged an F.I.R. at the Rourkela township police station wherein he alleged that the opposite parties and several others numbering about 150, formed an unlawful assembly and committed mischief in respect of some of his properties. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the opposite parties along with others for offences u/s 148 and 426, Indian Penal Code. In answer to the charge, the accused-opposite parties admitted their guilt and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40- each u/s 148. No separate sentence was awarded u/s 426, Indian Penal Code. The other accused persons denied the charge and were separately tried. In the present case, however, we are not concerned with them or the merits of the case so far as they are concerned. 3. The learned Magistrate obviously acted u/s 251-A (5), Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that in a case instituted on police report, if the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. The only question for consideration in this case is whether the sentence passed on the opposite parties calls for any enhancement as is urged upon on behalf of the State. It is well-settled that the question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion for the trial court, though in proper cases where the sentence passed is unusually lenient, it is open to the High Court to enhance it. No doubt, there is no limitation placed on the powers of the High Court to enhance the sentence, but it being a judicial act and like all other judicial acts involving exercise of discretion, such discretion must be exercised on some well-known judicial principles. 4. In a case Bed Raj Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held that in a matter of enhancement of sentence, there should not be any interference, unless the sentence passed is manifestly inadequate. The same view has also been expressed in a case Alam Giri and Anr. v. State of Bihar AIR 1859 S.C. 436, where it was observed that the question of sentence is normally in the discretion of the trial Judge. The same view has also been expressed in a case Alam Giri and Anr. v. State of Bihar AIR 1859 S.C. 436, where it was observed that the question of sentence is normally in the discretion of the trial Judge. It is for the trial judge to take into account all the relevant circumstances and decide what sentence would meet the ends of justice in a given case, and though the High Court has jurisdiction to enhance the sentence such jurisdiction can be properly exercised only if the High Court is satisfied that the sentence imposed by the trial judge is unduly lenient, or that in passing the order of sentence the trial judge has manifestly failed to consider the relevant facts. Thus, these are the circumstances which should be guiding factor in deciding whether in a particular case a sentence should be enhanced by the High Court. 5. In the present case, no witnesses were examined, no was anything brought out to show what exactly was the part played by the opposite parties in the alleged mob. All that appears from the F.I.R. is that they along with about 150 others were moving in some streets in Rourkela. It further appears that the place where the opposite parties stay is not far from the place where they were moving. The learned trial court appears to have taken these factors into consideration and on examination of the case diary seems to have been satisfied that it is a fit case where a sentence of fine is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Moreover, for a conviction u/s 148, Indian Penal Code the sentence of imprisonment is not compulsory and a sentence of fine could as well be imposed. Nothing has been shown from the materials on record by learned Counsel appearing for the State to hold that the sentence passed in unduly lenient so as to call for interference and to enhance the sentence. I see no reason to interfere and the petition is accordingly rejected. Petition rejected. Final Result : Dismissed