M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) ). These are three cases which are examples of grossly ridiculous sentences awarded for an offence under sec. 22a of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (the act) for breach of certain rules of the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules 1961 (the Rules ). The sentence in each case awarded on each count on acceptance of the plea of guilty of the accused is a fine of a trifling sum of Rs. 10/- when the section provides for a fine upto Rs. 500. 00. ( 2 ) MR. Vaidya the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that these are the provisions which are enacted for the purpose of ensuring that the employees in the scheduled employment in respect of which the minimum rates os wages have been fixed under the Act pay these wages regularly to the employees. Maintenance of registers in prescribed forms issuance of cards slips etc. in prescribed forms are not mere ideal formalities but are machineries set for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the Act. Any breach of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder has to be viewed strictly and deterrent punishment should be meted out to those employers committing breaches of these provisions so that it may be an eye opener to others and liberty would not be taken by employers in these matters. Mr. Vaidya therefore urges that in the instant case the learned Magistrate when he passed the sentence of a fine of only Rs. 10. 00 on each count in each of the three cases passed a sentence which is grossly inadequate and amounts to passing practically no sentence and allowing the employer to go scot-free from the precincts of a court room. ( 3 ) MR. Vaidya in this connection draws my attention to a decision of R. C. Mankad J. in Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 1977 decided on 23rd August 1978 where also a fine of Rs 10/- was imposed for an offence punishable under sec. 22a of the Act and in enhancement proceedings the same was enhanced to the maximum awardable under the Act viz. Rs. 500. 00. 22a of the Act and in enhancement proceedings the same was enhanced to the maximum awardable under the Act viz. Rs. 500. 00. The learned Judge while enhancing the sentence observed that the offence committed by the accused in not issuing the attendance cards to their workers in not maintaining stamped receipts in the wage book and in not paying monthly salary to the Workers in accordance with Rule 21 was a serious offence that the Act is a price of social legislation enacted for the benefit and to protect the interest of the employees and that therefore any violation of the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder mast be strictly viewed because by failure to maintain proper register the accused must be depriving the workers of their legitimate dues. ( 4 ) I am family in agreement with the views expressed by Mankad J. in this decision. A sentence has to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and when it concerns a social legislation specially enacted for the weaker section of the community it has to be administered with a heavy hand because otherwise the very object for which the legislation is enacted will be cause frustrated. Various formalities; to be perform sd by the employers are provided with the object that the employers do not exploit the employees and the employees get the minimum rates of wages guaranteed to them under the Act without any difficulty. It is therefore absolutely necessary that the checks provided in the Act are scrupulously enforced and if any employer is found violating any of the provisions of the Act or the rules he should be strictly dealt with. ( 5 ) IN the instant case awarding of the sentence of a fine of a paltry sum of Rs. 10. 00 is tantamount to permitting the guilty person to go almost scot free walking out of the precincts of the court premises with a triumphant look on his face. Such a person will not hesitate to commit breaches off and on if the only consequence thereof is an act of pleading guilty and walking away by throwing a ten rupee note by way of a fine. Such a person will not hesitate to commit breaches off and on if the only consequence thereof is an act of pleading guilty and walking away by throwing a ten rupee note by way of a fine. The result is obvious namely it will not at all deter others from committing such breaches but will on the contrary encourage them to indulge in a wanton disregard and disobedience of the provisions of the Act and the rules. Such orders are likely to make a laughing stock of our courts in the public eye and may bring the judicial administration into disrepute. Such orders have a tendency to impress the court on the public mind as a party to tripartite understanding of light sentence in lieu of nolo contendere stance in the words of Justice Krishna Iyer as one finds them in a realistic picture which the learned Judge has tried to draw up of pleas of guilty being accepted and the accused allowed to blet off very lightly in consideration of his pleading guilty. At page 688 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loya and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others (1976) 3 S C. C. 684 Krishna Iyer J. who delivered the judgment of the court made these observations:"to begin with we are free to confess to a hunch that the appellants had hastened with their pleas of guilty hopefully induced by an informal tripartite understanding of light sentence in lieu of nolo contender stance. Many economic offenders resort to practices the Americans call plea bargaining plea negotiation trading out and compromise in criminal case and the trial magistrate drowned by a docket burden nods assent to the sub rose ante-room settlement. The businessman culprit confronted by a sure prospect of the agency and ignominy of tenancy of a prison cell trades out of the situation the bargain being a plea of guilt coupled with a promise of no jail. These advance arrangements please everyone except the distant victim the silent society. The prosecutor is relieved of the long process of proof. The businessman culprit confronted by a sure prospect of the agency and ignominy of tenancy of a prison cell trades out of the situation the bargain being a plea of guilt coupled with a promise of no jail. These advance arrangements please everyone except the distant victim the silent society. The prosecutor is relieved of the long process of proof. Legal technicalities and long arguments punctuated by revisional exertions to higher court the court sighs relief that its ordeal surrounded by a crowd of pipers and persons is avoided by one case less and the accused is happy that even if legalistic battles might have held out some astrological hope of abstract acquittal in the expensive hierarchy of the justice-system he is free early in the day to pursue his old profession. It is idle to speculate on the virtue of negotiated settlements of criminal cases as obtains in the United States but in our jurisdiction especially in the area of dangerous economic crimes and food offences this practice intrudes on societys interests by opposing societys decision expressed through predetermined legislative fixation of minimum sentences and by subtly subverting the mandata of the law. The jurists across the Atlantic partly condemn the bad odour of purchased pleas of guilts and partly justify it philisophically as a sentence concession to a defendant who has by his plea `aided in ensuring the prompt and certain application of correctional measures to him". The order of sentence therefore in each of the three cases is grossly inadequate and there does not seem to be any reason whatsoever apparent on the record which induced the learned Magistrate to award such a ridiculous sentence of fine of Rs. 10. 00 when the penal provision contained in the Act provides for a fine upto the maximum of Rs. 500. 00. This therefore seems to be a fit case in which the sentence requires to be enhanced. ( 6 ) LASTLY it has to be borne in mind that this Act is on the statute book for over 30 years by now the same having been enacted in 1948. The rules were also enacted in 1951 and therefore every employer in the scheduled employment is expected to be conversant with various registers to be maintained forms to be filled in and cards to be issued as provided in the Act and the rules. The rules were also enacted in 1951 and therefore every employer in the scheduled employment is expected to be conversant with various registers to be maintained forms to be filled in and cards to be issued as provided in the Act and the rules. There was therefore no justification whatsoever for allowing the accused to get out of the court room with a mere fine of Rs. 10. 00 for each breach. Simply because the accused person pleads guilty it does not become necessary for the court to take too lenient a view of the matter and award a ridiculously low sentence. ( 7 ) MR. Parikh the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents- accused in all the cases makes a submission at the bar that the first respondent-concern was established only a year before the prosecution and was operating a small auto garage and respondent No. 2 being a new man in the field and not conversant with the procedure to be followed in maintaining various registers etc. did commit the said breaches but he ultimately purged himself of the breaches by maintaining various registers and issuing cards slips etc though much later. ( 8 ) IN my opinion looking to the facts and circumstances of the case ends of justice will be met if the sentence of fine of Rs. 10. 00 for each count in each case is enhanced to a sentience of fine of Rs. 103. 00. The result will be the following order: appeals allowed. Sentence of five of Rs. 10. 00 on each count in each of the cases from which the respective appeal arises is substituted by a sentence of fine of Rs. 100. 00 on each count in each of the said cases. In default of payment of fine of Rs 103/- S. I. for two weeks so far as accused No. 2 in each case is concerned. Appeals allowed. .