K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal for the enhancement of the sentence arises out of the judgment and order dated 27/04/1981 rendered in Summary Case No. 4295 of 1980 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. Bulsar wherein the respondent-accused Uttam Bhikhu Prajapati who on pleading guilty to the charge for offences under Secs. 65 (a) and (e) 66 and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 came to be convicted for the same End was ordered to suffer for each of the offence R. I. for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 40. 00 and in default further R. I. for 10 days. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY according to the prosecution the alleged offence took place on 21/11/1979 at 16. 45 hours near village Sonvadi on National Highway No. 8. On the basis of the secret tip-off P. S. I. B. P. Sarvaiya alongwith Panchas and another P. S. I. Thakore intercepted and searched ore Ambassador Car bearing No. MRC-9894 coming from Bombay. It was found that the respondent-accused herein was driving the said Ca while another accused-Chunilal Durlabji Thakkar was travelling with him. On making further search 313 bottles of foreign liquor of various brands valuing at Rs. 13 932 and some amount to the the of Rs. 2826. 00 in cash were recovered from the said Car. P. S. I. Sarvaiya thereafter in presence of Panchas seized the said Car and muddamal articles recovered therefrom. On the basis of these facts after the investigation was over the two accused of (i) Uttam Bhikhu Prajapati and (ii) Chunilal Durlabhji Thakkar came to be chargesheeted to stand trial before the learned Magistrate for the alleged offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 (for short the Act ). ( 3 ) THAT at the very commencement of the trial out of the two accused the respondent accused herein submitted a written purshis Ex. ( 3 ) THAT at the very commencement of the trial out of the two accused the respondent accused herein submitted a written purshis Ex. 11 pleading guilty and praying for mercy in the matter of sentence mainly on the grounds viz (i) that it was his first offence; (ii) that he will not commit the said offence in future; (iii) that the said offence has taken place due to ignorance of law; (iv) that he should be given an opportunity to improve; and (v) that he is poor having many children and burden of maintaining family upon him. As stated in earlier Para 1 of this judgment the trial Court accepting the plea of guilty convicted and sentenced the respondent-accused for the alleged offences. Since the another accused viz. Chunilal Durlabhji Thakkar refused to plead guilty his trial was separated and as the record speaks the said trial has not yet taken place. ( 4 ) HENCE feeling aggrieved by the lenient sentence; the State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the sentence. ( 5 ) MR. D. K. Trivedi the learned A. P. P. appearing for the State submitted that the impugned order of sentence is on the face of it illegal being contrary to the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that the respondent is alleged to have been found to be transporting the illicit liquor and the minimum sentence for the same is provided in Sec. 66 (1) of the Act. Section 66 (2) of the Act reads as under:sec. 66 (1) Whoever is contravention of the provisions of this Act. or of ary rule. regulation or older made. or of any licence permit pass or authorisation issued thereunder xxx xxx xxx (b) consumes uses possesses or transports any intoxicant (other than opium) or hemp. (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx2 xxx xxx xxx Shall on conviction be punished - (i) for a first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to the thousand rupees: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court such imprisonment shall not be less than three months and fine shall not be less than five hundred rupees. (ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxmr. (ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxmr. Trivedi further submitted that by no stretch of imagination it can ever be said that any of the grounds advanced by the respondent-accused for taking a lenient view of the sentence are in any way special and adequate. He further submitted that the ground namely it was his first offence is of no consequence because even for the first offence the minimum sentence has been provided in the Act. He further submitted that another ground namely that he was poor having children and burden of maintaining his entity family was on him is also of no consequence because if the same is taken as a special and adequate reason for awarding less then the minimum sentence then the proviso would be rendered nugatory as in our country this can be a general ground. In support of his contention Mr. Trivedi invited my attention to the case reported in AIR 1980 SC 1141 in the case of Meet Singh v. The State of Punjab. The extract of its head-note reads as under:the words special reasons in the context in which they are used could only mean special to the accused on whom sentence is being imposed. The Court has to weigh reasons advanced in respect of each Individual accused whose case is taken up for awarding sentence the word special has to be understood In contradistinction to word general or ordinary Thus anything which is common to a large class governed by the same statute cannot be said to be special to each of them. The Court has to weigh reasons advanced in respect of each Individual accused whose case is taken up for awarding sentence the word special has to be understood In contradistinction to word general or ordinary Thus anything which is common to a large class governed by the same statute cannot be said to be special to each of them. It would thus unquestionably appear that special reasons in the context of sentencing process must be special to the accused in the case of special to the facts and the circumstances of the case in which the sentence is being awarded where the only two reasons special according to the High Court for awarding loss than the minimum sentence where (1) appellant had lost his job and (i) he a married man with children held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while Interfering with the quantum of sentence these two reasons would be common to ninety nine per sent of cases tried under Prevention of Corruption Act and if they can be styled as special reasons for awarding less than the minimum sentence the Proviso would be rendered wholly nugatory The Court should not be oblivious to the fact that while conferring discretion in the matter of awarding adequate sentence within limits prescribed by the statute the legislature finding cases of misplaced sympathy in sentencing process fettered the Courts discretion by prescribing a minimum sentence and making it obligatory to record special reasons for awarding less than the minimum. Mr. Trivedi in the course of his argument tendered an affidavit of Mr. D. D. Patil P. S. I. alongwith a copy of the letter dated 20-9-1989 addressed to him by P. I. Special Task Force Bulsar Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit discloses that the respondent-accused was involved in yet one another offence vide C. R. No. 38 of 1980 registered at Vansda Police Station for the alleged offences under Secs. 66 (1) (b) 65 and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 66 (1) (b) 65 and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In the said case it has been alleged by the prosecution that the respondent-accused was once again found transporting foreign made beer and brandy in Ambassador Car No. MRC-9894 on 2/02/1980 alongwith Chunilal Durlabhji Thakkar (who is accused No. 2 in this case) and Vithal Chana Kamadi of village Ringwad Taluka-Daman were arrested and chargesheeted on 10-7-1981 and the said case is pending in the Court of the learned J. M. F. C. Vansda District Valsad. In continuation of the above affidavit the learned A. P. P. Mr. Trivedi has produced before this Court a certified copy of judgment and order of acquittal dated 30/12/1983 in Summary Case No. 207 of 1987 which pertains to the above C. R. No. 38 of 1980 a copy of which is ordered to be kept on record on perusal of the said judgment it appears that as per the instructions of the P. S. I. Sarvaiya P. S. I. Vaidya intercepted and searched Ambassador Car No. MRC-9894 and recovered muddamal liquor bottles. It also appears that criminal case out of which the present appeal for enhancement of sentence arises as well as the Criminal Case No. 207 of 1987 has taken place within the span of three to four months. Though prima facie it appears that P. S. I. Sarvaiya figures in investigation of both these cases yet for whatever reasons the facts of the earlier case has not been brought on the record while trying the subsequent Summary Case No. 207 of 1987. In both these cases the accused pc sons. car number and the nature of offence committed are practically the same. if that is so this amounts to per se negligence of the investigating agency. The learned A. P. P. is directed to draw the attention of all the concerned departments regarding this fact. Such scant respect for the Prohibition Act is simply intolerable. In this view of the matter according to Mr. Trivedi the sentence should be suitably enhanced so as to meet with the ends of justice. ( 6 ) AS against the above Mr. S. D. Patel the learned Advocate (appointee) appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that this appears to be a case of plea-bargaining. In this view of the matter according to Mr. Trivedi the sentence should be suitably enhanced so as to meet with the ends of justice. ( 6 ) AS against the above Mr. S. D. Patel the learned Advocate (appointee) appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that this appears to be a case of plea-bargaining. He submitted that if the accused were to know that he was to be imposed a minimum sentence prescribed under the Act in that case he would not have pleaded guilty. Mr. Patel submitted that plea bargaining is illegal and unconstitutions Under the circumstances submitted Mr. Patel it would be unfair to enhance the sentence against the accused once having induced him to plead guilty. Mr. Patel further submitted that the impugned order of sentence apparently being as a result of plea- bargaining same was illegal and unconstitutional and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Patel submitted that if at all this Court feels that the sentence passed by the trial Court is inadequate and that the same deserves to be enhanced to the extent of the minimum prescribed then in that case the order of remand can be the only legal order where the accused will have fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his case. In support of his submissions Mr. Patel invited my attention to a decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 747 in the case of Thippeswamy v. State of Karnataka wherein it is held:where by reason of plea bargaining the accused pleaded guilty and was convicted and sanitized by Magistrate acting upon his plea of guilty the enhancement of sentence by the appellate or revisional Court in appeal or revision by acting on plea of guilty would not be reasonable fair and just. It would be clearly violative of Art 2s of the Constitution to induce or lead an accused to plead guilty under a promise or assurance that he would be let off lightly and then in appeal or revision to enhance the sentence the Court of appeal or revision should in such a case set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and remand the case to the trial Court so that the accused can if he so wishes defend himself against the charge and if be is found guilty proper sentence can be passed against him. There is lot of substance in the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Patel. It appears from the circumstances of the case that but for the plea-bargaining the accused would not have pleaded guilty. Once that is the position it would be necessary to remand the matter to the trial Court. It cannot be gainsaid that the submissions made by Mr. Trivedi the learned A. P. P. have no force. It is so very apparent that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is less than the minimum. It is equally apparent that the grounds advanced by the respondent- accused for taking lenient view in the matter of sentence as referred to above cannot be said to be a special and adequate reason in the light of the Supreme Court decision (supra ). Having gone thus far with the learned A. P. P. he has still to cross one more hurdle viz. that this Court cannot chance the sentence passed on the basis of plea bargaining as it would be straightway violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Trivedi the learned A. P. P. in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision conceded that the matter deserves to be remanded. ( 7 ) DURING the course of the hearing it was pointed out to this Court by the learned A. P. P. that the trial of the another accused viz. Chunilal Durlabhji Thakkar who pleaded not guilty is still pending. This is deed is both shocking and unfortunate. In such cases where there are more accused and trial are separated and pending and against some of the accused some proceedings are taken ahead before the higher Court then in that case it is a duty of the trial Court to bring to the notice of the said higher Court that the trial against the accused concerned is pending and therefore it be permitted to retain the record till the trial is over. After doing that the trial Court ought to have seen that the trial is expedited and the record is sent back to the higher Court. It is also the duty of the prosecuting agency to see that the trials are conducted as expeditiously as possible. In this case the prosecuting agency is not leis irresponsible in delaying the trial. After doing that the trial Court ought to have seen that the trial is expedited and the record is sent back to the higher Court. It is also the duty of the prosecuting agency to see that the trials are conducted as expeditiously as possible. In this case the prosecuting agency is not leis irresponsible in delaying the trial. But for the sheer negligence of all concerned both the trial Court as well as prosecuting agency has displayed utter negligence this trial would not have been unnecessarily protracted for such a long period. No Court much prosecuting agency can ever afford to forget that the time is a vital factor is criminal trial. Once it starts running out and the trial gets protracted it can become an enemy of the prosecution because is the meantime the witnesses may die leave the place of ordinary residence forget the incident resulting into failure of a case. Such a thing should not have happened. It is hoped that in future proper care will be taken by all concerned in such types of matters. ( 8 ) IN the result this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order of sentence is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to decide the same on merits according to law. In view of the fact that the alleged offence is an old one the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. The office to return the R and P of the case immediately (KMV) Case remanded. .