( 1 ) THE petitioner was convicted for an offence under S. 13 (l) (f) of the mysore Excise Act, 1965, hereinafter to 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 15-1-70 at about 11-45 p. m. the accused was found to be in possession of some arrack and 25 litres of fermented wash, in Shirva village. The accused pleaded guilly to the charge and was sentenced as above. His appeal before the Sessions Judge of South Kanara in Crl. App. 53 of 1972 was dismissed. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, Sri P. Viswanatha Shetty, the learned advocate raised two contentions: They are : (1) That the accused was not conversant with Kannada and knew only thuly and Konkani languages and therefore his plea as recorded in Kannada could not be accepted. (2) That in any event the mandatory sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed under S:32 of the Mysore Excise Act as amended by Act 1 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, viz. 15-1-1970. ( 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 ben 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 guilt 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 Shitty deserves to be accepted. S. 32 of the Mysore excise Act stood amended by Act 1 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 stood charged, was committed on 15-1-1970. It is also undisputed that Act 1 of 1970 received the assent of the President only on 14-2-1970, it is no' doubt 'true that Act 1 of 1970 had been made applicable retrospectively from 23-12-1969. But the question is, whether the amended S. 32 could be invoked in respect of an offence committed on 15-1-70, as in the intant case, prior to the coming into force of S. 32 as amended by the said Act. ( 7 ) ON this question, Sri Shetty invited attention to Art. 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 notwithsanding Act 1 of 1970, the petitioner herein has to be dealt with only under the law as in force on 15-1-1970, 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 1 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 serttence imposed on the petitioner has been expressly based on the amended S. 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 S. 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 modfiy the sentennee 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 months' rigorous imprisonment. ( 11 ) SUBJECT to the above modification as regards sentence, this petition stands dismissed. --- *** --- .