K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE common questions arising for consideration in group of these 27 appeals for enhancement of the sentence pertain to the legality and propriety of Mass Plea Bargaining recorded by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the oral plea of guilty by accused. The grievance voiced by the Appellant-State is to the effect that though indisputably the cases under these appeals were warrant triable cases and supposed to be tried accordingly as per the procedure laid down in Ss. 244 to 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (for short - the Code) and further though the prosecution was entitled to prove the previous convictions of the accused in order to bring about the enhanced minimum punishment to be inflicted upon him in manners prescribed under S. 298 of the Code the learned Magistrate quite surprisingly circumventing the entire procedure has recorded the illegal pleas of guilty convicting and sentencing him to pay the nominal punishment of fine of Rs. 50. 00 and i/d. S. I. for 15 days. ( 2 ) NOW just at very outset of this judgment to indicate the answer (to the questions raised) which is going to follow in the due course it may be stated that the manner in which trials came to be trifled with is highly reprehensible and cannot be countenanced for a while. Accordingly the grievance made by the appellant-State is not only well founded but this court further regretfully feels that such perfunctory approach in conduct of trials make it impossible the enforcement of any legislations much less the beneficial legislation reducing the same to virtual nullity. Between the two types of violation of law viz. one under the substantive law which can be committed by any person and the other under the procedural law which can be committed by the courts the later one if not more at least is not less deplorable. It has been rightly observed by Frank R. Prassel in his book Criminal Law Justice and Society that substance and procedure are both essential to any legal system and must operate in close conjunction. Legal cause may be lost on failure of either substantive or procedural element. It has been rightly observed by Frank R. Prassel in his book Criminal Law Justice and Society that substance and procedure are both essential to any legal system and must operate in close conjunction. Legal cause may be lost on failure of either substantive or procedural element. It will be simply too credulous to view such patent and gross blunders as ordinary simple judicial errors of judgments which can just be suitably taken care of and be set right in the course of the procedural hierarchy by way of appeals and revisions as they are far more objectionable warranting serious note to be taken at the administrative level calling for explanations and consequences if necessarily so justified. Inadvertent lapse because of less or lack of experience in the matter of procedure perhaps may justifiably be pardoned once a while but the transgression of the mandatory provisions pertaining to minimum inflexible punishment without justifiable circumstances is quite a serious thing to be ignored. ( 3 ) TO state few relevant facts of the cases briefly the Factory Inspector - Mr. Y. N. Mehta when on 11-1-1990 at 6-15 p. m. visited Milton Private Ltd.- factory situated in Kandla Free Trade Zone at Gandhidham it was found that the work inside was going on and some workers as named in the complaint were on work. It was further found out that though the names of the 27 workers were duly mentioned in the register for adult workers maintained in Form No. 28 their presence were not shown by marking P. Not only that but the said workers were also found to be working contrary to the period of working hours duly notified on Form No. 14 maintained under the relevant provisions of the Factories Act 1943 (for short - the Act) and the Rules made thereunder. On the basis of these facts on 10 the Factory Inspector filed as many as 27 complaints for the alleged offences under Section 63 read with Section 94 of the Act before the learned J. M. F. C. Gandhidham against Shri Subhash S. Desai the Manager of the said Milton Private Ltd. After this came to be registered as Criminal Case Nos. 1384/90 to 1410/90 summons were issued against the respondent. Thereafter it appears that on the very first day i. e. On 16 the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and orally pleaded guilty. 1384/90 to 1410/90 summons were issued against the respondent. Thereafter it appears that on the very first day i. e. On 16 the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and orally pleaded guilty. This was accepted and on the basis of the same the accused in each of the cases was separately ordered to be convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. 00 and S. I. for three days. Thus aggrieved by the aforesaid grossly inadequate orders of sentences the appellant-State has prefer red present appeals for the enhancement of the sentences. ( 4 ) MR. D. K. Trivedi the learned P. P. appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that apart from the fact that impugned orders of sentences imposing a fine of Rs. 50. 00 only were grossly inadequate the same were even otherwise patently illegal being contrary to the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 94 of the Act. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that taking into consideration the fact that the punishment provided under Section 94 of the Act was an imprisonment for a term with may extend to three years or with fine which shall not less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakhs rupees or both etc. the cases were undoubtedly warrant triable cases. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that since in all complaints it has been specifically pointed out that the respondent had committed offences under Section 63 of the Act for which he was liable to be punished under Section 94 of the Act it was the right of the prosecution to get enhanced penalty being imposed upon the accused by proving the offence in the manner prescribed under Section 298 of the Code. Mr. Trivedi further in the course of the arguments produced a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 22-5-1989 of the Criminal Case No. 2765/89 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. Gandhidham wherein for the very offence under Section 63 of the Act on the respondent-accused pleading guilty was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 50. 00 only. Mr. Trivedi accordingly submitted that despite the aforesaid glaring defects the learned Magistrate brushing aside entire procedure has straightway accepted oral plea of guilty sentencing him to the nominal fine which has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. Mr. 50. 00 only. Mr. Trivedi accordingly submitted that despite the aforesaid glaring defects the learned Magistrate brushing aside entire procedure has straightway accepted oral plea of guilty sentencing him to the nominal fine which has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. Mr. Trivedi finally and quite fairly urged that though the present appeals were appeals for enhancement of the sentences he was not in a position to persuade this could to enhance the same as from the circumstances it appears that these cases were the cases of illegal Mass Plea Bargaining and that he would be satisfied if the cases were remanded to the trial court to be heard and decided on merits according to law. ( 5 ) MR. S. R. Shah the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent while opposing these appeals has submitted on affidavit of the respondent demonstrating the case of plea-bargaining. In substance it has been alleged in the said affidavit of the respondent that he had sufficient and valid defences to meet with the allegations levelled against him in the complaint. It is further alleged by the respondent that it was at the instance and persuasion of the Factory Inspector that he was induced to admit guilt with a promise that the Court would be requested to take lenient view in the matter by imposing token fine of Rs. 50. 00 only. It is further stated that with a view to avoid any conflict with the Factory Inspector to avoid waste of time for so small offences only by way of plea bargaining he had pleaded guilty. According to Mr. Shah in view of these facts it was not proper for the Factory Inspector to prefer these appeals for the enhancement of the sentences. Mr. Shah further submitted that since these cases were the cases of plea bargaining it would be neither legal nor just or proper to enhance the sentences against the accused as each one of the trial is vitiated. He also submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case the same may not be remanded to the trial Court. ( 6 ) BOTH learned Counsels appearing for the respective sides though were unanimous in. He also submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case the same may not be remanded to the trial Court. ( 6 ) BOTH learned Counsels appearing for the respective sides though were unanimous in. their ultimate submissions that these cases were the cases of illegal Mass Plea Bargaining they sharply differed on the point as regards the circumstances which lead to the said unfortunate illegal and unjust situation. Now whether these cases of Mass Plea Bargaining were at the instance of the promise and inducement flowing from the Factory Inspector or not the same is difficult to be adjudged at this stage on the basis of mere words against words. However following unquestionable self-evident circumstances appearing on the face of record clearly demonstrate that these are the cases of illegal Mass Plea Bargaining. Accordingly to mention the first of such circumstances is a fact that - since the punishment provided under Section 94 of the Act is the imprisonment which may extend to three years these cases were clearly warrant triable cases for which the procedure as required under Sections 244 to 250 of the Code has to be followed and yet the same has not been followed. As per the provision under Section 244 of the Code it is always incumbent upon the learned Magistrate first to hear the prosecution and then to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the case. Thereafter also the learned Magistrate is required to follow the procedure as laid down in Section 245 of the Code by virtue of which he may either discharge or charge the accused as the case may be. The stage of recording of the plea of accused comes only when Section 246 of the Code comes into play. Thus evidently in all these cases before actual stage of recording the plea under Section 246 of the Code could be arrived at the learned Magistrate short-circuiting the entire procedure has abruptly recorded and accepted the oral plea of the accused pleading guilty convicting and sentencing him with a nominal fine as stated above. Thus evidently in all these cases before actual stage of recording the plea under Section 246 of the Code could be arrived at the learned Magistrate short-circuiting the entire procedure has abruptly recorded and accepted the oral plea of the accused pleading guilty convicting and sentencing him with a nominal fine as stated above. Secondly in view of the alleged previous convictions as the accused was liable to be further punished under Section 94 of the Act by way of enhanced penalty no plea of guilty can legally be taken and accepted without affording the prosecution reasonable opportunity of proving the previous convictions in the manner prescribed under Section 298 of the Code. In fact in the cases wherein prosecution comes out with the cases of previous convictions and prays for enhancement of penalty then in that case the charge will have to be framed in the light of Section 211 (7) of the Code stating therein facts regarding previous conviction of the accused. If that is not done it will not be permissible for the court to spring surprize to the accused and enhance the sentence. What is shocking is the fact that though in all 27 complaints it has been alleged that the accused has committed offences under Section 63 read with Section 94 of the Act yet for whatever reasons the said expressed prayer has been ignored. It is true that whenever in such cases prosecution comes out with a case or previous conviction against the accused it is desirable that the said previous convictions are expressly embodied in the complaint itself setting out - (i) name of the court; (ii) number of the criminal case; (iii) name of the accused; (iv) alleged offences; (v) date of conviction and sentence if any; (vi) nature of sentence etc. etc. Now though in all 27 complaints out of which present appeals arise broadly speaking Section 94 has been referred to as read with Section 63 of the Act but the specific details in matter of previous conviction of the accused by way of criminal case number offence date of judgment and order of conviction and sentence etc. etc. are not stated. It was only during the course of the argument that the learned P. P. has produced the certified copy of the judgment and order of previous conviction. etc. are not stated. It was only during the course of the argument that the learned P. P. has produced the certified copy of the judgment and order of previous conviction. As already stated above in every cases wherein the prosecution comes out with the case of previous conviction and on the basis of the same intends the enhanced penalty to be inflicted upon the accused proper care is required to be taken by mentioning the same in the complaint itself instead of producing the copy of judgment at random before the court. Here since what is produced before us is the certified copy of the judgment prima-facie notice can be taken about the same but in order to rely upon the same it will have to be proved and brought on the record according to law. Thirdly though the accused was tried for the similar offences in as many as 27 cases under Section 63 of the Act apparently for exploiting the workers by making them to work beyond the stipulated hours the learned Magistrate has let him off with nominal fine of Rs. 50. 00 only. This is too sad. In fact to take extra work from the needy poor workers by exploiting their helpless situation beyond the stipulated notified hours by no stretch of imagination can be said to be mere technical offence and therefore the same warranted a grave view calling for the stringent punishment which had a deterrent effect on the accused and likewise others in the area Fourthly as stated above though the accused was prosecuted for repeating the similar offence under Section 63 of the Act for which the minimum punishment provided under Section 94 of the Act was a fine not less than Rs. 10 0 etc. yet the trial court in clear disregard to the same had awarded a fine of Rs. 50 only. 10 0 etc. yet the trial court in clear disregard to the same had awarded a fine of Rs. 50 only. Fifthly in cases wherein any statute has prescribed any minimum punishment and there the accused pleads guilty and further prays for the mercy in the matter of sentence then in that case before accepting the same and recording the order of conviction and sentence thereunder it is the duty of the learned Magistrate to explain to the accused and to make him understand that despite his pleading guilty and praying mercy no lenient view be taken as the court had no alternative but to inflict the minimum punishment so ordained by the law. If such care was taken for what ought we know the accused would have liked to face the trial rather than to plead guilty. This type of the procedure while recording the plead guilty is absolutely necessary as it cares to safeguard the accused being taken by surprize and entrapped in his own pleading guilty while labouring under the false hope that the mercy as pleaded will be accorded to him by the learned Magistrate. Thus all or any of the circumstances either taking them collectively and or individually the same leaves no room of doubt whatsoever that in these cases the plea of guilty of the accused have been illegally rushed through skipping necessary procedure only with a view of disposal oriented plea-bargaining. This clearly renders all trials entirely unconstitutional illegal and void-ab-initio. In this view of the matter it is not possible to enhance sentence as initially prayed for by the state and the cases will have to be remanded to the trial court with a direction to try them de-novo and dispose them off on merits according to law. ( 7 ) FURTHER taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the cases that the same came to be decided only last year it is not possible to accept the argument of Mr. S. K. Shah the learned Counsel for the respondent that the cases being old the same should not be remanded. ( 8 ) WHILE recalling the observations made in advance in above Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this judgment it is painful to note the manner in which all these cases came to be rushed through in the name of plead-guilty leaving aside due procedure established by law. ( 8 ) WHILE recalling the observations made in advance in above Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this judgment it is painful to note the manner in which all these cases came to be rushed through in the name of plead-guilty leaving aside due procedure established by law. Thus the learned Magistrate has not only unmistakably violated the procedural law under the Code but has also violated substantive law by disregarding the mandate of law in not imposing minimum sentence as provided in the Act. Such a thing is nothing but a case of judicial misconduct subject of course to the explanation report and consideration thereof. Such cases of judicial misconduct must be viewed quite seriously and accordingly while making inspection the learned Sessions Judges of the State are expected to take the care and note of such impermissible and avoidable eventualities and make it a point to report the same to the High Court irrespective of any appeals or revisions filed by the State against the impugned orders or not. ( 9 ) IN the result these appeals for enhancement fail and are dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate are hereby quashed and set aside. All these cases under appeals are hereby remanded to the trial court with a direction to dispose of the same on merits as expeditiously as possible. Mr. D. K. Trivedi the learned P. P. and Mr. S. R. Shah the learned Advocate for the respondent undertake before this court to direct their respective parties to appear before the learned Magistrate on 15-3-1991 to take the date for further trial. (RPV) Cases remanded. .