Order.- The petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 13 (1) (f) of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 with necessary default sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15th January, 1970 at about 11-45 p.m. the accused was found to be in possession of some arrack and 25 littres of fermented wash, in Shirva village. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced as above. His appeal before the Sessions Judge of South Kanara in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1972 was dismissed. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, Sr P. Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned Advocate raised two contentions: — They are- (1) That the accused was not conversant with Kannada and know only Thulu and Konkani languages and therefore bis plea as recorded in Kannada could not be accepted. (2) That in any event the mandatory sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed under section 32 of the Mysore Excise Act, as amended by Act I of 1970 would have to be reviewed, keeping in view the unamended provisions of that section as in force on the date of the offence, namely, 15th January, 1970 4. On behalf of the State it is contended by Sri N.H. Naik, the learned Advocate, that the first contention could not be accepted for the reasons set out by the learned appellate Judge. He invited attention to the portion of the judgment where a contention made by the Counsel for the accused to the effect that the Presiding Officer of the trial Court knew both Thulu and Kannada, had been noted. He further contended that even assuming that the accused knew only Thulu and Konkani languages it would still be open to the learned Magistrate to record the substance of such plea in Kannada. 5. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the contention urged on behalf of the State deserves to be accepted. Indeed, the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not seriously press this point for the consideration of the Court. 5. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the contention urged on behalf of the State deserves to be accepted. Indeed, the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not seriously press this point for the consideration of the Court. On going through the record and the judgments of the Courts below, I am also satisfied that the plea of guilty of the accused had been properly recorded and no prejudice had been caused to the accused on that account. I therefore reject this contention. 6. Turning now to the next contention, I am of the. opinion that the submission of Sri Shetty deserves to be accepted. Section 32 of the Mysore Excise Act stood amended by Act I of 1970, as a result whereof minimum sentence of three months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 for an offence punishable under that section had been made mandatory. It also seems to me that the sentence imposed on the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has been based on the aforesaid amended provisions. It is undisputed that the date on which the offence with which the petitioner Mood charged, was committed on 15th January, 1970. It is also undisputed that Act I of 1970, received the assent of the President only on 14th February, 1970. It is no doubt true that Act I of 1970, had been made applicable retrospectively from 23rd December, 1969. But the question is, whether the amended section 32 could be invoked in respect of an offence committed on 15th January, 1970, as in the instant case, prior to the coming into force of section 32 as amended by the said Act. 7. On this question, Sri Shetty invited attention to Article 20 of the Constitution of India which states that no person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It is therefore clear that notwithstanding Act I of 1970, the petitioner herein has to be dealt with only under the law as in force on 15th January, 1970, the date of the offence. 8. Section 32, prior to its amendment by Act 1 of 1970, had provided for punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine. 8. Section 32, prior to its amendment by Act 1 of 1970, had provided for punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine. There is also a proviso therein which enables the Court to award a sentence of fine of less than Rs. 100 for any special and adequate reasons, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. What is to be seen from this section is the sentence of imprisonment and fine are mandatory. But the difference between this section and the same as amended by Act I of 1970, in so far as it concerns the punishment to be imposed, lies in the fact that by the amendment sentence of imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 100 have been made mandatory. 9. I have earlier observed that the sentence imposed on the petitioner has been expressly based on the amended section 32 of the Act in question. In that view., it is necessary, for me to. consider the question of sentence afresh in the light of the unamended provisions of section 32 of the Act. 10. It is submitted by Sri Shetty, that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a few days. It is also pointed out by him that the petitioner is an old man of 68 years and poor at that. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I think it proper to modify the’ sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him and reduce the sentence of fine to Rs. 50 only, with a default sentence of one month’s rigorous imprisonment. 11. Subject to the above modification as regards sentence, this petition stands dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Sentence modified; Petition dismissed.