VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals for enhancement of sentence are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25-9-1981 rendered in criminal Cases Nos. 954 and 955 of 1984, respectively by the learned j. M. F. C. , Talaja, wherein one Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain, who came to be prosecuted for the alleged contravention of Secs. 29 (l) (a) and 29 (l) (b) read with Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short the Act) read with rule 60 (1) of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 (for short the Rules), on his allegedly pleading guilty, was convicted for the same and sentenced (separately by each of the two orders) to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00in default, s. I. for 20 days. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY to summarise the prosecution case according to the complainant mr. Y. N. Mehta, Factory Inspector, Bhavnagar, one Mahavir Prasad Jain, at the relevant time of the inspection was an occupier of a factory, namely, jay Bharat Steel Co. situated at Plot No. 6, Ship Breaking Yard, Alang. It further appears that for inquiring into some matter of fatal accident that took place on 14-6-1984, Mr. J. R. Parikh, another Factory Inspector visited the said factory on 19-6-1984, on making on the spot inspection, it was found out that the occupier of the said factory had contravened Secs. 29 (l) (a) and 29 (l) (b) of the Act and Rule 60 (1) of the Rules. On the basis of these facts, Mr. Y. N. Mehta, Factory Inspector on 13-9-1984 filed two criminal complaints against Mahavir Prasad Jain before the learned J. M. F. C. , Talaja, who after directing them to be registered as criminal cases, ordered issuance of summons, fixing the next date of hearing on 25-9- 1984. On 25-9-1984, accused appeared before the Court and as shown in rojkam proceedings in the presence of the complainant pleaded guilty. This was accepted by the learned Magistrate and the accused came to be convicted and sentenced for the same as stated above in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present two appeals for enhancement of the sentence by the state of Gujarat. ( 3 ) MR. This was accepted by the learned Magistrate and the accused came to be convicted and sentenced for the same as stated above in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present two appeals for enhancement of the sentence by the state of Gujarat. ( 3 ) MR. S. T. Mehta, the learned A. P. P. appearing for the appellant- state while challenging the impugned order of sentence on the grounds of being illegal and inadequate has submitted before us that looking to the gravity and seriousness of offences, a meagre fine of Rs. 100. 00 only imposed on accused was not only grossly inadequate but the same was also contrary to the statutory minimum punishment prescribed under Sec. 92 of the Act. The learned A. P. P. further submitted that the sentences for the alleged offences under Secs. 29 (l) (a) and 29 (l) (b) of the Act were prescribed in the proviso to Sec. 92 of the Act, which was to be not less than Rs. 1000. 00. According to the learned A. P. P. , merely because the accused pleaded guilty that by itself can never be a ground to award a sentence lesser than the statutory minimum prescribed under the Act. The learned A. P. P. further submitted that despite the fact that in the body of the complaint itself though the reference to the minimum sentence for the alleged offences had been expressly made, yet the learned Magistrate fur the reasons best known to him, ignoring the same has awarded a sentence of fine of Rs. 100. 00 only, which per se was illegal being contrary to the express provisions of the law. The learned A. P. P. in the light of his above submissions finally urged that this appeal for the enhancement of sentence deserves to be allowed and accordingly the impugned order of sentence be suitably modified by enhancing the same making it consistent with minimum prescribed under the law. ( 4 ) AS against the above, Mr. The learned A. P. P. in the light of his above submissions finally urged that this appeal for the enhancement of sentence deserves to be allowed and accordingly the impugned order of sentence be suitably modified by enhancing the same making it consistent with minimum prescribed under the law. ( 4 ) AS against the above, Mr. M. J. Budhbhatti, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused has vehemently opposed the enhancement of sentences mainly on the ground that the sentence which was proposed to be enhanced at this stage in appeal for the enhancement of sentence is against the accused mahavir Prasad Jain who as per the record of the case itself was neither served with the summons nor had in any other manner appeared before the learned Magistrate. Mr. Budhbhatti further submitted that the person who pleaded guilty in this case was one Lakhan Lalji, who is certainly not the accused in the present case, nor was he known to accused. Mr. Budhbhatti still further submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that this Lakhan Lalji was having any authority to plead guilty on behalf of the accused Mahavir prasad Jain. While making good this submission, Mr. Budhbhatti invited the attention of this Court to Ex. 2 which appears to be a statement of the accused when he appeared before the Court. Now in this Ex. 2, at the top of it is mentioned Criminal Cases Nos. 954 and 955 of 1984 respectively, that is to say, two cases wherein Mahavir Prasad Jain was accused. Further in the columns of the name, fathers name, age, occupation, resident etc. the name shown is Lakhan Lalji, inhabitant of Alang etc. etc. Thereafter just below it, there is a question put by the Court to-quote "you have been read-over and explained complaint Ex. 1. Do you plead guilty?" to which there is an answer given by the accused - i plead guilty. This plea of guilty appears to have been signed by Lakhan Lalji on left side of the paper before the learned Magistrate who has placed his signature on right side. Thus, on careful examination of Ex. 2 on the record, one thing is very clear that though the cases referred to are Criminal Cases Nos. This plea of guilty appears to have been signed by Lakhan Lalji on left side of the paper before the learned Magistrate who has placed his signature on right side. Thus, on careful examination of Ex. 2 on the record, one thing is very clear that though the cases referred to are Criminal Cases Nos. 954 and 955 of 1984 were registered against Mahavir Prasad Jain, yet quite surprisingly, the name of Mahavir Prasad Jain is totally absent in it and in his place, name of accused is shown to be that of Lakhan Lalji. This situation makes it abundantly clear that though two criminal cases were in respect of Mahavir prasad Jain, quite surprisingly the learned Magistrate recordered the plea of totally unknown person, namely, Lakhan Lalji. Thus, when confronted with aforesaid embarrassing unfortunate situation, the learned A. P. P. after checking the record, expressed his total inability to controvert the said situation. Accordingly, the submission of Mr. Budhbhatti that when indeed accused mahavir Prasad Jain was neither served with the summons nor in any other manner appeared before the Court, there cannot be any question of he pleading guilty to the offence arose and once such is an untroverted position on the record then in that case, this Court cannot enhance the sentence against Mahavir prasad Jain. ( 5 ) NOW undoubtedly, the above submissions of Mr. Budhbhatti are wholly irresistable and deserve to be accepted. On perusal of the record, the fact remains that the person who pleaded guilty was one Lakhan Lalji and not the real accused namely Mahavir Prasad Jain, the occupier of jay Bharat steel Co. , Alang. It appears that somehow, some mistake has taken place while recording the plea of guilty. Of course, the Rojkam does show that at the point of time when the plea of accused came to be recorded, the complainant was present, but in that case, such a mistake would not have ordinarily taken place. Any way, it is too difficult at this stage to say as to how and under what circumstances the said plea of a wrong person came to be recorded in place of the real accused. Any way, it is too difficult at this stage to say as to how and under what circumstances the said plea of a wrong person came to be recorded in place of the real accused. In this view of the matter, though the learned A. P. P. is primarily right when he submitted that the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate being less than the minimum prescribed under the Act, the same deserved to be enhanced, unfortunately, nothing can be done in the matter, more particularly, when the learned A. P. P. is not in a position to controvert indisputable facts appearing on the record. Under the circumstances, there is no alternative left with this Court except to accept the submissions of Mr. Budhbhatti and remand these two cases to the trial court with a direction to dispose of the same on merits according to law as expeditiously as possible, since they are about six years old. ( 6 ) WHILE parting, it is required to be stated that whatever might be the reasons for such an unusual and unfortunate mistake like the one committed in the present case, the same unquestionably is shocking enough to be an eye-opener calling upon the learned Magistrates to be extremely careful henceforth while recording the plea of the accused. The recording of the plea of accused should not be reduced to a mechanical process. In fact, taking a lesson from the present episode, it would be quite advisable if in all such cases wherein accused pleads guilty, the learned Magistrate first of all personally checks up or supervises (without leaving the job to the Bench Clerk) as to what is the name of the accused ? In which case he has come ? Is he the same individual against whom the summons is issued ? Is he duly served with summons ? If yes, whether the copy of the service of summons is received back and properly preserved in a file meant for it. If he is so served, then - whether any appearance of the learned Advocate on behalf has been filed ? Is he duly served with summons ? If yes, whether the copy of the service of summons is received back and properly preserved in a file meant for it. If he is so served, then - whether any appearance of the learned Advocate on behalf has been filed ? In case if the accused pleads guilty without filing any appearance of the learned Advocate, then the learned Magistrate has also to further see that the identity of the accused before the Court is satisfactorily established by the complainant or in any other suitable manner satisfactory to the learned Magistrate. If the learned advocate despite his filing appearance on behalf of the accused, for whatever reason is absent at the time when the accused pleads guilty, then in that case, the recording of such plea of guilty either may be adjourned to some future date or also such identity of the accused be duly okayed by the complainant present in the Court or in any other manner satisfactory to the learned Magistrate. Further in every case wherein the accused pleads guilty, the learned Magistrate after exercising care and circumspection as indicated above, may also briefly indicate the basis of his satisfaction regarding the correct identity of the accused. Further, if the identity of accused is sought to be established by the complainant, then in that case, the signature of the complainant over and above the signature of the accused must be taken below the statement where the plea of such guilty of such accused is recorded. Unless such extra precautionary procedure evincing utmost care and concern is adopted by the leamed Magistrate, it is too difficult to rule out such unfortunate recurrence of the incident in future. ( 7 ) IN the result, both these appeals are partly allowed and are disposed of in the light of the directions given hereinabove. .