K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal for enhancement of the sentence arises out of the judgment and order dated 19-6-1984, rendered in Criminal Case No. 950 of 1984, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, wherein Shri shyamsundar Basalal and 8 others who came to be tried for the alleged offences under Secs. 4 and 5 of the Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) act, 1978 (for short "the Act") were ordered to be convicted for the same and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300. 00 and in default R. I. for 30 days. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY speaking, the prosecution case as reflected and summed up in charge Exh. 4 was to the effect that "shyamsundar Basalal and 8 others of bhavnagar prior to 12-8-1984 stated a firm in the name and style of "shivam corporation" and gave inducing advertisement inviting funds from the public without licence and thereby committed offence under Secs. 4 and 5 of the Act. During the course of the proceedings, the accused pleaded guilty to the charge and prayed for mercy submitting that they did not know that the licence was required for their alleged activities. After coming to know about the same, they had returned the money to the respective subscribers. The learned Magistrate accepting said plea of guilt, convicted and sentenced each of the accused as stated above in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal for enhancement of sentence by the State. ( 3 ) MR. H. B. Antani, learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the impugned order of sentence till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 300. 00 was ridiculously low and contrary to the minimum prescribed under the Act. The learned Addl. P. P. further submitted that taking into consideration the gravity of the offences, namely where innocent gullible lot of the society was cleverly duped and fleeced by such chit schemes, the impugned order of sentence was on the face of it grossly inadequate. Further according to the learned Addl. P. P. in proviso to Secs. 4 and 5 of the said Act, the minimum sentence prescribed, reads as under :". . . . . . . Further according to the learned Addl. P. P. in proviso to Secs. 4 and 5 of the said Act, the minimum sentence prescribed, reads as under :". . . . . . . in absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, the imprisonment shall not be less than one year and fine shall not be less than Rs. 1,000. 00. "in this view of the matter, also the sentence imposed by the trial Court is contrary to law being less than the minimum prescribed. Under the circumstances, it is finally urged by the learned Addl. P. P. that the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate deserves to be suitably enhanced at least to the extent of the minimum prescribed under the Act so as to set right the manifestly illegal order. ( 4 ) MR. H. L. Patel, learned Advocate for the accused while vehemently opposing the above submissions made by the learned Addl. P. P. , has raised two contentions for consideration of this Court. They are : (i) That the alleged pleading guilty to the charge by accused do not in fact and law constitute any offence under the Act as neither in the Act nor in the Rules made thereunder, there is any provision for obtaining a licence for the commencement or continuation of the alleged activities of prize, Chits and Money Circulation Scheme. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of conviction and sentence fails and must be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the facts and circumstances of this case clearly indicate that this is a case of "plea bargaining" and in that view of the matter also the court would not be legally justified in enhancing the sentence of the accused. ( 5 ) NOW, no doubt the submissions made by the learned Addl. P. P. are indisputably clear enough to carry the point and do not require any further elaboration for accepting the same, but at the same time, two contentions raised by Mr. H. L. Patel, the learned Advocate for the accused, are the real hurdles in way of the learned Addl. P. P. in getting this appeal successfully allowed. P. P. are indisputably clear enough to carry the point and do not require any further elaboration for accepting the same, but at the same time, two contentions raised by Mr. H. L. Patel, the learned Advocate for the accused, are the real hurdles in way of the learned Addl. P. P. in getting this appeal successfully allowed. On going through the contents of charge and taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, it is so very apparent that no question of taking any licence for the alleged activities arises. In fact, the alleged activity of Prize, chits and Money Circulation Scheme is clearly banned under Sec. 3 of the said act. If that is the legal position, then what the accused pleaded to was merely accepting the facts stated in the charge which did not constitute any offence at all and accordingly the moment the element and foundation of the offence us found to be absence, the entire structure of conviction and sentence must give way. Mr. Patel appears to be further right when he submitted that the alleged plea of guilty by the accused, was obviously, by way of "plea bargaining". Had the learned Magistrate while reading and explaining the charge to the accused at the time of recording the plea also explained to them that despite having pleaded guilty and prayed for mercy, they would be still visited with minimum sentence prescribed under the Act, then in that case for ought we know that the accused might have chosen better to face the trial rather than pleading guilty inviting minimum sentence. The learned Addl. P. P. in view of this unsurmountable situation was not in a position to further persuade this Court to enhance the sentence and rightly agreed that this is a matter which deserves to be remanded for De Novo trial. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, there being into substance in this appeal for enhancement of sentence, the same will have to be dismissed quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order. Now having regard to the fact that the charge is found to be defective on account of its reference to without obtaining licence, the trial Court will have to frame a fresh charge and then to proceed ahead with the De Novo trial according to law. Now having regard to the fact that the charge is found to be defective on account of its reference to without obtaining licence, the trial Court will have to frame a fresh charge and then to proceed ahead with the De Novo trial according to law. ( 7 ) IN the result, this appeal for enhancement of sentence fails and is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside. Fine, if paid, be refunded. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to be disposed of on merits according to law as expeditiously as possible. .