JUDGMENT - D.J. MOHARIR, J.:---This appeal by the State is for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent-accused, upon his conviction on admission for a contravention of the provisions of a rule framed under the Factories Act, 1948 and punishable under section 92 thereof. The respondent is the occupier of M/s. Balkrishna Paper Mills Ltd., Ambivali P.O., Mohane, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. The worker of a contractor engaged by the petitioner for carrying out certain works met with a fatal accident on 6th July 1983. The fact of this death was inquired into by the complainant Inspector of Factories. The facts were as under: 2. One Gulamuddin Mohiddin Kureshi was one of the workers employed by the contractor. He had been working near the asbestas sheet roof of Plant No. III of the paper mill. The work being carried out by him and other workers was of water proofing of gutter of the said plant building. While so working near the asbestas roof the said workman Gulamuddin Mohiddin Kureshi happened to step on an A.C. sheet which unfortunately gave way whereby the said workmen fell down from a height of 42 feet on the ground receiving serious injuries and died on the spot. Inquiries conducted by the Inspector of Factories revealed that the respondent accused as the occupier of the factory, as bound by the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, had committed a contravention of the provisions of Rule 73(f) of the Act, in that no suitable and sufficient number of ladders duck ladders, crawling boards as required by law were provided to the workers. A permit to work near fragile roof as required to be issued to a worker by some responsible person of the factory had also not been issued. Therefore, according to the complainant, the respondent-accused was liable to be punished under section 92 of the Act. 3. Upon a charge in this behalf framed against the respondent-accused, he pleaded guilty and offered no defence. He was, therefore, convicted. While dealing with the question of award of sentence the learned Magistrate observed that there was no ill-intention on the part of the accused in not providing the ladders, duck ladders, crawling boards, etc., though of course, the fact of contravention of the provisions of Rule 73(F) was incontrovertible. He was, therefore, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. While dealing with the question of award of sentence the learned Magistrate observed that there was no ill-intention on the part of the accused in not providing the ladders, duck ladders, crawling boards, etc., though of course, the fact of contravention of the provisions of Rule 73(F) was incontrovertible. He was, therefore, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- and in default to suffer R.I. for one month. 4. The State seeks enhancement of this sentence as awarded on the premise that the sentence is entirely inadequate having regard to the fact that a fatal accident occurred by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 73(F), framed under Chapter IV of the Act dealing with safety measures to be taken in factories. At the hearing of this appeal, the respondent accused has remained absent as is his counsel. 5. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Kothari for the appellant State and I am satisfied that the sentence as awarded can indeed be called a flea bite of a fine, entirely inadequate when considered in light of the gravity of the contravention and the consequences which resulted therefrom. 6. The provisions of Rule 73(F) are as follows : "73-F. Fragile Roofs - Provision of Crawling Boards etc. - In any factory, no person shall be required to stand or pass over or work on or near any roof or ceiling covered with fragile material like A.C. sheets or similar material through which he is liable to fall, in case it breaks or gives way, a distance of more than three meters unless--- (a) suitable and sufficient ladders, duck ladders or crawling boards, which shall be securely supported, are provided and used; and (b) a permit to work on the fragile roof is issued to him each time he is required to work thereon by a responsible person of the factory concerned." The fact that the Inspector of Factories had made an enquiry into this fatal accident on 7th July 1983 and he found that no suitable and sufficient number of duck ladders, crawling boards securely supported were provided and used in the present case. The roof near which the worker was carrying on his work of water proofing of the gutter of the plant building was an A.C. sheet roof and which is covered by the expression `fragile' material in the explanation to Rule 73(F). The roof near which the worker was carrying on his work of water proofing of the gutter of the plant building was an A.C. sheet roof and which is covered by the expression `fragile' material in the explanation to Rule 73(F). That it was so fragile was demonstrably proved by the fact, admittedly, that the moment the worker stepped down on the A.C. sheet, it broke and gave way causing the workman to fall down 42 feet on the ground. It is also a measure of the gravity of this incident that the unfortunate worker died on the very spot. In the event of a person being required to carry out such work which requires him to stand or pass over fragile material, through which he could be liable to sustain a fall in the event of its breaking or making way, the rule requires the permit to work on the fragile roof is issued by the occupier of such factory each time he is required to carry out the work thereon and that such permit has to be issued by some responsible person of the factory concerned. As stated earlier, all these allegations of fact, constituting the material particulars of the offence alleged to have been committed have not been disputed and, therefore, admitted by the respondent-accused. The contravention of provisions of Rule 73(F) is, therefore, very clearly established. That resulted in the respondent-accused's conviction on entering the plea of `guilty'. The sentence which was awarded to him was of Rs. 150 and in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. The record shows that the fine was very promptly paid. 7. The provisions of section 92 of the Factories Act as in force on the date of accident i.e. 6th July 1983 read as under : "92. The sentence which was awarded to him was of Rs. 150 and in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. The record shows that the fine was very promptly paid. 7. The provisions of section 92 of the Factories Act as in force on the date of accident i.e. 6th July 1983 read as under : "92. Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extent to two thousand rupees or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to seventy-five rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued. Provided that where contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter IV or any rule made thereunder or under section 87 has resulted in an accident causing death or serious bodily injury, the fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees in the case of an accident causing death, and five hundred rupees in the case of an accident causing serious bodily injury. Explanation.---In this section and in section 94 "serious bodily injury" means an injury which involves, or in all probability will involve, the permanent loss of the use of, or permanent injury to, any limb or the permanent loss of, or injury to, sight or hearing, or the fracture of any bone, but shall not include, the fracture of bone or joint (not being fracture of more than one bone or joint) of any phalanges of the hand or feet. The proviso to section 92 requires a certain minimum of fine which must be imposed on a person accused of the commission of the contravention of the provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder. The minimum fine prescribed in the case of an accident causing death is Rs. 1000/-. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate could not have imposed so paltry an amount of fine as Rs. The minimum fine prescribed in the case of an accident causing death is Rs. 1000/-. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate could not have imposed so paltry an amount of fine as Rs. 150/-; that he was bound to impose a fine of at least Rs. 1000/-. This contention is clearly unexceptionable. The learned Magistrate observed that this was not a case of contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules with any ill-intention. Mens rea is not a constituent element of this offence. The moment the contravention is proved, the liability to conviction and sentence including the minimum sentence whenever prescribed stands incurred. It was the bounden duty of the learned Magistrate, therefore, to impose the minimum sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- in the present case. 8. However, it is also to be appreciated here, that the contravention, by reason of even admission of the guilty appears to have been so blatant that according to me, even the requirement of imposing of the minimum fine of Rs. 1000/- could not properly have been in invoked by the respondent-accused were he to be present at the hearing of this appeal today. It is indeed the maximum which according to me, should have been imposed in the present case, though it appears to me that the matter deserved to be considered for the award of a sentence of imprisonment also. However, in as much as the respondent-accused is not present, I would not proceed on such graver lines. 9. In the result, the appeal has to be allowed. The sentence as awarded by the learned Magistrate is hereby substituted by a sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment rigorous imprisonment for six months. The respondent accused having already paid Rs. 150/- he would now be liable to pay only the balance. Appeal allowed. *****