VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State of Gujarat for enhancement of the sentence is directed against impugned judgment and order, dated 5/11/1984, rendered in Criminal Case No. 4036 of 1984, by Mr. R. G. Pandya, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad [rural] at Narol, wherein the respondents - B. S. Thakker, who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sees. 21 (l) (iv) (c) and 92 of the Factories act, 1948 [for short "the Act"], on pleading guilty was convicted for the same and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default to undergo R I. for 20 days. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to Mr. S. R. Bodat, the Factory Inspector, on 27-6-1984 when he visited digvijay Cement Company Limited at Digvijay Nagar, ahmedabad, he was informed that on 23-6-1984 at 11-30 a. m. one worker named Rampal Ramlal had met with fatal accident while on work and died on 26-6-1984 during the course of his treatment. Thereafter on making inquiry, the Factory Inspector recorded the statement of the workers present in the premises, viz. , [1] Ramdulare Ramavadh; [2] Algu Shripat; [3] Kishor Ramdhan, supervisor; and [4] Harischandra Babulal. On the basis of these facts, Factory inspector ultimately filed a complaint dated Nil before the Court of learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad [rural] at Narol which from the endorsement on it appears to have been received by the said Court on 12- 9-1984. Thereafter, on respondent appearing before the Court on 5-11-1984, pleaded guilty and the learned Magistrate accepting the same, convicted and sentenced him passing a short order which reads as under :"the accused admits to have committed the offence. The complainant is absent. Thus, when the accused pleads guilty to the charge, instead of dismissing the complaint, I hold him guilty. It has been stated by the accused that this was his first offence and that the place at which the alleged fatal accident took place, was not a place where he was supposed to work. Not only that, but no worker was expected to go there and it was for this reason that the security arrangement was not made. " ( 3 ) MR. Not only that, but no worker was expected to go there and it was for this reason that the security arrangement was not made. " ( 3 ) MR. K. P. Raval, the learned A. P. P. for the appellant-State while challenging the impugned order of unduly lenient order of sentence submitted that the same was ex-fade illegal being contrary to the minimum sentence prescribed in proviso to Sec. 92 of the said Act. Mr. Raval making good his submission, invited attention of this Court to the said proviso to Sec. 92 of the Act which reads as under :" XXX XXX XXX provided that where contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter IV or any rule made thereunder or under Sec 87 has resulted in an accident causing death or serious bodily injury, the fine shall not be less than (twenty five thousand rupees) in the case of an accident causing serious bodily injury. "mr. Raval further submitted that in the instant case also, since the accident has resulted into death of a worker while at work on the machine, the respondents was liable to be visited with fine not less than Rs. 25,000. 00 under Sec. 92 of the said Act, Mr. Raval further submitted that it is indeed unfortunate that the impugned order came to be passed at the back of the complainant who was not present at the relevant point of time when the plea of guilty came to be recorded. Mr. Raval made a grievance that in this case, no rojkam proceedings are available as to give us an idea as to when the Court actually issued summons to the accused fixing the date for hearing, Mr. Raval still further submitted that had indeed the learned Magistrate who being quite senior and experienced, just cared to read the complaint and the relevant proviso to Sec. 92 of the Factories act, would have certainly realized that the offence alleged against the respondent was quite serious one for which the minimum sentence provided was not less than Rs. 25,000. 00. The learned A. P. P. further submitted that in any way it is indeed difficult to say whether it was a pica of guilty or alleged exculpatory circumstances put forward by the respondent, which prevailed over the mind of learned Magistrate while taking lenient view of the matter. Mr. 25,000. 00. The learned A. P. P. further submitted that in any way it is indeed difficult to say whether it was a pica of guilty or alleged exculpatory circumstances put forward by the respondent, which prevailed over the mind of learned Magistrate while taking lenient view of the matter. Mr. Raval further submitted that if the learned Magistrate was moved by any exculpatory circumstances, then in that case he should have better refused to accept the plea of guilty and should have proceeded to record evidence of the Factory inspector so as to enable him to controvert the alleged circumstances put forward by the respondent and that it was only after this, that he should have passed appropriate order. This anxiety was unfortunately not shown by the learned Magistrate and it appears that the instant case is disposed of in not haste by awarding light sentence of fine of Rs. 200. 00. The learned a. P. P. further submitted that had indeed the learned Magistrate explained to the respondent that he was likely to be visited with the minimum sentence of Rs. 25. 000. 00 then in that case, probably he would have refrained from pleading guilty. The learned A. P. P. further submitted that looking to the fact that though minimum sentence is prescribed under Sec. 92 of the Act, yet the accused have been let off with nominal sentence of fine of Rs. 200/ -, the possibility of plea bargaining cannot be ruled out. On the basis of above submissions, the learned A. P. P. ultimately relying upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of State of Gujarat v. Thakorlal K. Rana and Ors. , reported in [1991 (1)] XXXII (1) GLR 71, finally urged that the impugned order being ex-fade illegal, the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial Court for fresh trial. ( 4 ) MR. A. S. Kothari, the learned Advocate for the respondent in view of the clear-cut penal provisions as contained in proviso to Sec. 92 of the act and the decision of this Court rendered in case of the State of Gujarat v. Thakorlal K. Rana and Ors. ( 4 ) MR. A. S. Kothari, the learned Advocate for the respondent in view of the clear-cut penal provisions as contained in proviso to Sec. 92 of the act and the decision of this Court rendered in case of the State of Gujarat v. Thakorlal K. Rana and Ors. , ( 1991 (1) GLR 71 ) was unable to resist the arguments of the learned A. P. P. He however submitted that as the alleged offence was of the year 1984, and that by this time about 8 years have already elapsed, this was not a case calling for any remand. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, one thing is very clear that the learned Magistrate has passed order of sentence which is not only unduly lenient and manifestly illegal but the same is also perverse [emphasis supplied]. Having regard to the facts alleged in the complaint, when the worker has lost his life as a result of fatal accident while on job, in the factory premises, there was no discretion vested in the learned Magistrate except to impose sentence of fine of not lesser than Rs. 25,000. 00. Moreover, in such cases where worker lost his life while on duty and for which the Legislature has prescribed minimum sentence of fine of Rs. 25,000. 00, to award fine of Rs. 200. 00 is not only ridiculous but the mockery of justice more particularly when the learned Magistrate appears to be quite senior and experienced one. It is indeed further unfortunate that the learned Magistrate could remain totally unaffected to the nature of the injuries sustained by the worker wherein his left hand getting tangled was dragged into the machine, as a result of which he received injuries on his left side jaw and chest so much so that his jaw was totally diverted to the opposite. When in its utmost anxiety and concern to protect the life and limbs of the workers, the Parliament specially came out with the minimum sentence of fine of Rs. 25,000. 00 to be inflicted upon the accused and yet, to shockingly find in the instant case, court awarding ridiculous sentence of fine of Rs. 200. 00 only, what picture indeed the Administration of Justice would be projecting in the public eyes is not difficult to guess. 25,000. 00 to be inflicted upon the accused and yet, to shockingly find in the instant case, court awarding ridiculous sentence of fine of Rs. 200. 00 only, what picture indeed the Administration of Justice would be projecting in the public eyes is not difficult to guess. What has unfortunately happened has happened, however, such things as far as possible should not once again get repeated in future, if at all we wish to maintain the image of administration of justice untarnished and at its peak as it could be. It is highly desirable that all the Courts of law and the law enforcing agency while administering the criminal justice in labour matter, must share the same care and anxiety of the Legislature, and if they fail, the legislative intent cannot reach the ultimate goal of the labour justice. Not to implement the Labour Laws, and for that purpose, any law in its true spirit is not only counter-productive but the same may as well expose the Administration of Justice to any allegations shacking the faith of workers in particular and public at large. It is indeed not difficult to appreciate some greedy employers flouting provisions of the Labour Laws and committing some offences but it is indeed difficult to conceive how the law enforcing agency and/or law interpreting agency, i. e. , the Court can be permitted to turn their respective eyes away from the spirit, object and goal of the Act. ( 6 ) THERE is nothing on the record to know whether the accused was represented by an Advocate or not. Looking to the fact that on accused pleading guilty despite minimum sentence prescribed under the law, he in number of cases is found to be let off with light sentence of fine. it appears that whenever any accused express his willingness to plead guilty, the same should always be recorded by the learned Magistrate in presence of the complainant so that while passing the order of sentence, he could be heard on the point of sentence and in case where the minimum sentence is prescribed under the law by some inadvertent mistake or chance even, the accused may not get away with less than minimum one. Had indeed the learned Magistrate pointed out to the accused that having regard to the minimum sentence prescribed in the proviso to Sec. 92 of the Act, perhaps, the accused might not have pleaded guilty and might as well have claimed to be tried. It may be stated that in the past under identical circumstances, many such matters have been remanded to the trial courts for fresh trial and accordingly, this matter also deserves to be remanded to the trial Court. ( 7 ) WHILE parting, it may be stated that surprisingly though the complaint came to be received by the Court on 12-9-1984, no Rojkam proceedings have been forwarded alongwith the record. This is something quite strange, surprising and shocking too as it runs counter to the directions issued by this Court to all its subordinate Courts on the point. All the subordinate Courts should see that Rojkam proceedings are maintained in every case and the same are forwarded with the record of the case. ( 8 ) IN the result, though the appeal for enhancement of sentence fails, as observed above, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remanded to the trial Court to be decided on merits according to law. Mr. K. P. Raval, learned A. P. P. is directed to inform the Complainant - S. R. Bodat, Factory Inspector to appear before the trial Court on or before 14-5-1993 to take the date for trial and also to take a direct service of summons to be served on the accused. In view of the fact that the case is of the year 1984, the learned Magistrate is directed to conduct the trial as expeditiously as possible, bearing in mind the guidelines given in the judgment of this Court reported in case of State of Gujarat v. Dr. C. K. Patel, reported in [1991 (2)] XXXII (2) GLR 995. .