M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals filed by the State are directed against the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First class Palanpur before whom their respondent-original accused who is the same in both the cases was tried for the offense punctual under sec. 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (the Act) and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/in default 7 days S. I. in case No. 85 of 1979 from which arises criminal No. 467 of 1979 and fine of Rs. 15/in default 7 days Sit in case No. 87 of 1979 from which arises criminal appeal No. 468 of 1979. In the first mentioned case the prosecution was launched for breach of rules 21 (4) and 25 (2) of the Minimum Wages Rules 1961 (the Rules); while in the other case the same was for breach of rules 26 (1) 26 and 26 (5) of the Rules in are for not maintaining a muster roll pay roll and not issuing pay slips The complaint was filed by the Minimum Wage Inspector Palanpur in both the cases ( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate then recorded the plea of the accused and on the accused pleading guilty he accepted the same and passed the impugned orders of conviction and sentence in both the cases aggrieved by which orders so far as the sentence is concerned the State has preferred these two appeals for enhancement of sentence. ( 3 ) AT the outset it may be mentioned that Mr. Raval the learned Advocate appearing for the accused-respondent in both the appeals in response to the notice of the appeals served on the accused-for enhancement of sentence challenges the order of conviction on the ground that this is a clear case of plea bargaining and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the order of conviction and sentence without applying his mind to the facts of the case. ( 4 ) MR. Raval draws my attention to the orders passed in the instant case particularly to the original order which is passed in case No. 87 of 1979 from which appeal No. 468 of 1979 arises. ( 4 ) MR. Raval draws my attention to the orders passed in the instant case particularly to the original order which is passed in case No. 87 of 1979 from which appeal No. 468 of 1979 arises. The complaint filed is on a printed form in which blanks are kept for filling in the name of the accused rules for watch breaches are alleged the date on which the complainant-inspector for visited the establishment of the accused and the particulars of the breaches alleged. On the back of this printed complaint with the blanks filled in as aforesaid there is a rubber stamp affixed also containing show blanks which are filled in. In the rubber stamp appears the question stating that ex. 1that isthe complaint was read over explained to the accused and he is asked as to whether he wants to defend the proceedings and then in the rubber stamp appears the word (reply) with a blank which is filled in by ink by inserting the words (I plead guilty to the charge ). Then there appears the word (date) with a blank which is filled in by inserting 8-2-1979 in ink. Then there is a rubber stampwith a blank below it and the words J. F. M. Palanpur. In between these words appears illegible signature in ink as also addition of word Chief before the word J. F. Magi. Palanpur. Then appears the order passed by the learned Magistrate which is also passed by filling in blanks in a rubber stamp impression in which section of the Act are kept blank. Now here also the words mentioned are26 (1) (2) (5) that means-Minimum Wages-26 (1) 26 and 25 (5 ). . The amount of file is also kept blank and it is filled in by uncertainty figure 15 and in the default clause also the figure of days for which S. I is imposed in default of payment of fine is kept blank and it is filled in by inserting figure 7 and then against the wordin rubber stamp date 8 -2-1979 appears with the signature. Above the rubber stamp word Palanpur before which in blank are inserted words Chief Judicial Magistrate and the date 8-2-1979 followed by a rubber stamp fine paid below which Appears the figure of Rs. 10/in case No. 85 of 1979 and Rs. 15/in case No. 87 of 1979. Above the rubber stamp word Palanpur before which in blank are inserted words Chief Judicial Magistrate and the date 8-2-1979 followed by a rubber stamp fine paid below which Appears the figure of Rs. 10/in case No. 85 of 1979 and Rs. 15/in case No. 87 of 1979. ( 5 ) THIS therefore shows the manner and method in which pleas of the accused persons are recorded in criminal cases and orders are passed by filling in blanks kept in a rubber stamp order which is impressed on the back of the protect complaint filed by the complainant. This practice to say the least is deplorable and does not befit any judicial institution. As is evident from the two orders here at some places even the rubber stamp is partly blurred and not legible. It is also evident that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not fully applied his mind to the nature and gravity of the offense and the sustains which has the awarded and which has to be in consonance therewith. He has mechanically passed the impugned stamp orders without applying his mind. In tale orders the offenses are described as the offenses of committee breaches of certain rules under the Act and the punishing section is not mentioned at all. Conviction cannot be recorded in such cases merely for breach of the rules unless the same is renders punishable by some provision in the Act. The accused is to by convicted under the punishing section and that would be sec. 22-A of the Act but the rubber stamp orders show that he is convicted and the rules for which there cannot be any conviction as such. The conviction would be under the section for breach of the rules or under the relevant section read with the relevant rules. Such a plea followed by imposing of a ridiculous sentence of fine of Rs. 10/on two counts in one case and Rs. 15/on three counts in the other case smacks of plea bargaining and any plea recorded by following such method cannot be treated as a plea voluntarily recorded with full implication of the allegations made in the charge against the accused. Such a plea is not a plea in the eye of law and any order of conviction are sentence based on such a plea cannot be sustained. Such a plea is not a plea in the eye of law and any order of conviction are sentence based on such a plea cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) THE result of the above discussion will be that which dismissing the States appeals for enhancement of sentence the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First class Palanpur in both the cases against the accused will have to be set aside and the matters remanded for trial afresh from the stage of reading over and explaining the contents of the charge or the complaint to the accused and then proceeding onwards from that stage according to law. Fine if paid to de refunded. Order accordingly. Matter remanded. .