M. P. THAKKAR, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate 3 Court Ahmedabad seems to be of the opinion that a contravention of a provision of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act 1952 which is considered by the Parliament to be a matter required to be dealt with seriousness and severeness can be treated on a par with a petty traffic offence and has imposed a fine of Rs. 50. 00for contravention of the relevant provision of the Act. ( 2 ) THE following tabular statement will show that contribution payable on account of employees contribution as also under the head of employers contribution was not paid for a very long time. The statement will show the position in regard to each of the four allied matters which are being disposed of by this common judgment. Cr. Case No. (Cr. B. A. No.) wage Month employees contribu tion. Date of pay -ment. Employers contribu tion. Date of pay ment. 939/74 (170/75) may73 - - 342-25 26-7-75 june - - 334-25 29-7-75 july - - 349-25 26-7-75 938/74 (169/75) august - - 303-00 30-7-75 september - - 245-50 30-7-75 october - 229-00 30-7-75 940/74 171/75 november 205-75 2-5-74 205-75 30-7-75 december *199-75 2-5-74 199-75 30-7-75 january *272-50 4-6-74 272-50 30-7-75 *payments made late but before filing of complaint. 1005/74 (172/75) feb - - 261-25 30-7-75 march - - 272-00 30-7-75 april - - *271-25 18-6-74 *payment made late but before filing of complaint. In three instances even employees contribution which was recovered by the Company was not paid as is disclosed by the tabular statement set out hereinabove. The opponents who were prosecuted for an offence under sec. 14 (1a) pleaded guilty. The plea was accepted and the learned trial Magistrate disposed of the case in a cavalier fashion by imposing an atomic sized fine in complete disregard of the mandate of the Parliament reflected in sub-sec. (1a) of sec. 14 of the Act which provides for a minimum sentence of not less than three months in case of default in payment of employees contribution deducted by the Company and which further provides that in any other case the minimum sentence shall not be for a term of less than one month. (1a) of sec. 14 of the Act which provides for a minimum sentence of not less than three months in case of default in payment of employees contribution deducted by the Company and which further provides that in any other case the minimum sentence shall not be for a term of less than one month. There is a proviso which enables the Court for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term or of fine only in lieu of imprisonment. The learned trial Magistrate has not applied his mind to this dimension of the provision which reflects the legislative intention to treat offences of such Contraventions with utmost seriousness. Having regard to the Parliamentary mandate. good and adequate reasons must exist before the discretion to impose a sentence of mere fine is exercised by a Court. The matter must receive anxious consideration at the hands of the Court. Due regard must be paid to the mandate and after taking into account all the relevant circumstances a lighter sentence may be imposed if so warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. Instead of doing so the learned trial Magistrate has treated the offence as a very light and trivial offence and has imposed a ridiculously low sentence of a fine of Rs. 50/_ on each count. No reasons are assigned for doing so. It is surprising that such a lenient sentence was imposed even though the dues had not yet been paid on the date on which the sentence was imposed. In matters relating to contravention of the provisions of such an Act imposing of a sentence of imprisonment must be the rule and imposing of a sentence of mere fine an exception. A rich man who commits an economic offence out of avarice or in order to enlarge his economic empire and to maintain his privileged position arising out of his affluence cannot be treated on par with a poor man who commits a property offence for his bread or sustenance. One who robs to purchase an air-conditioner or a T. V. set cannot claim the same leniency as one who does likewise to stave off starvation. One who robs to purchase an air-conditioner or a T. V. set cannot claim the same leniency as one who does likewise to stave off starvation. Otherwise an impression will be created that there is one law for the rich (which favours him) and another for the poor (which frowns at him) in a society professing egalitarian ethics but indulging in elite practices. And the situation is confounded when the rich rob the poor for whose poverty they are in some measure responsible. The provident fund provides a measure of safety and security for the workers who have invested their entire life-time in the service of the Company. A person who robs a poor man of even the rags on his person deserves a very deterrent punishment and if a lenient view of such offences is taken by the Courts the administration of justice would lose the respect which it enjoys at the hands of the society at large. Under the circumstances the sentence imposed by the learned trial Magistrate which is extremely inadequate must be enhanced. .