JUDGMENT R. S. Thakur, J.—This suo motu revision is directed against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, dated August 30, 1985, whereby the respondent was sentenced under section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (hereinafter called as ‘the Act). 2. The facts are that a complaint was filed by the Labour Inspector, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, with the allegations that the respondent was working as a contractor in the Chamera Project at Banikhet but he failed to get himself registered under section 12 of the Act despite notification by the State of Himachal Pradesh dated April 11, 1985, prescribing 1st of May 1975 as the appointed day and which date was further extended upto December 31, 1976 and hence he was liable to be convicted for the offence under section 23 of the Act. The respondent on August 30, 1985 attended the Court and pleaded guilty to the offence in question and he was, therefore, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200 as stated earlier. 3. The suo motu revision was entertained as it was found that the sentence meted out to the respondent was inadequate and he was, therefore, issued notice to show cause why the sentence in question should not be enhanced vide order of this Court dated December 31, 1987. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respond dent was a petty contractor at the relevant time but has since ceased to work under the Chamera Project and shifted his business to Paonta Sahib and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the matter. Since the respondent has confessed his guilt for violating the provisions of section 12 of the Act, it has to be held that he was a contractor and was employing contract labour within the provisions of the Act. Now section 12 imperatively lays down that the appropriate State Government may by a notification prescribe an appointed day where after no contractor within the meaning of this statute shall undertake or execute any work through contract-labour except in accordance with the licence issued in this behalf by the Licensing Officer. Now section 12 imperatively lays down that the appropriate State Government may by a notification prescribe an appointed day where after no contractor within the meaning of this statute shall undertake or execute any work through contract-labour except in accordance with the licence issued in this behalf by the Licensing Officer. Sub-section (2) of the said section lays down that the licensing authority may prescribe certain conditions in the contract itself which the contractor concerned has to comply with and more particularly with reference to condition as to hours of work, fixation of wages, and other essential amenities in respect of the contract labour etc. Then Chapter V enumerates various facilities which may be extended to the contract-labour. Section 23 of the Act provides the penalties which may be entailed for the contravention of any of the provisions of this Statute. 6. Thus it is clear that the very intendment of the Act underlines the various modes by which the welfare of contract labour within the meaning of this statute can be vouchsafed or ensured. It is, therefore, apparent that while the law courts are seized of the offences under the said statute they have to be very careful and cautious to see that the provisions thereof are punctually and strictly complied with and in case of violation thereof the culprit be visited with deterrent punishment. In the instant case I feel that the trial court has failed to keep in mind this important fact while dealing therewith and has thus let off the respondent with a petty fine of Rs. 200. 7. In these circumstances, I am firmly of the view that enhancement of the sentence is called for in the case in hand. However, since as the learned counsel for the respondent has also pleaded, as the respondent was a petty contractor who had just started this business and further it is his first offence, in my opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if the respond dent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, only and I, therefore, set aside the order of the lower court dated August 30, 1985 and sentence the respondent to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 1,000, only and I, therefore, set aside the order of the lower court dated August 30, 1985 and sentence the respondent to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The fine shall be deposited in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, within a period of one month from today. Order accordingly.