Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 26-10-1990 in S. T. C. No. 860 of 1990, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Arakonam, convicting the petitioner under section 24 of the Con tract Labour (Regular and Abolished) Act. 1970, for the violations of Rules (12 counts) and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each count totaling to Rs. 12,000/- on his pleading guilt. ( 2 ) THOUGH the petitioner filed a petition before the lower Court pleading guilty, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner has been challenged by the petitioner in this revision on the sole ground that a single complaint for 12 different offences is not valid in law under section 218. Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) MR. P. Madhavan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that section 218. Cr. P. C. for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately and that the joinder of charges would be a fatal to the prosecution. ( 4 ) MR. Ilias Ali, learned Additional Central Government. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent represents that proviso to section 218. Cr. P. C. would say that where the accused person by an application in writing so desires and the Magistrate is of the opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby the Magistrate may try together all or any proved charges framed against such person. On this basis he contended that the petitioner himself has filed a petition pleading guilt and did not raise any objection for a single complaint having been filed against him for all these 12 offences violations. He further contended that under section 220. Cr. P. C. if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. In brief, his contention would be that the filing of a single complaint for all these offences which took place in the same transaction cannot be said to be invalid in law. In brief, his contention would be that the filing of a single complaint for all these offences which took place in the same transaction cannot be said to be invalid in law. ( 5 ) ON perusal of the complaint, it is seen that 12 offences are distinct, committed on various occasions and on different dates. In that event, I feel that section 220. Cr. P. C. will not be applicable to this case. However, as per the proviso to section 218 Cr. P. C. since the petitioner filed a petition pleading guilty, it must be construed that he expressed the opinion that he is not likely to be prejudiced in the single complaint containing all the 12 distinct offences. Moreover, section 464 (1), Cr. P. C. provides that no finding shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or mis-joinder of charges unless in the opinion of the Court of appeal or revision a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. Learned Counsel for the, petitioner was not able to bring to my notice any infirmity in the judgment of the Court below imposing conviction and sentence on the petitioner. As such, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the lower Court which has been resulted in any failure of justice. ( 6 ) DURING the course of argument as a final resort learned Counsel for the petitioner pleaded to consider the question of sentence for which he contended that all the 12 counts are only for minor violations and so the fine of Rs. 1,000/-for each count is so harsh and it may be reduced to a considerable extent since the petitioner was the first offender. Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel was heard in this respect. He does not have any serious objection with regard to the reduction of the sentence of fine imposed upon the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN the light of the above circumstances, I feel that interest of justice would be met, by reducing the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- into one of Rs. 50/-(Rupees fifty only) on each count. Accordingly, the conviction imposed on the petitioner by the Trial Court is confirmed and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-on each count is modified into one of Rs. 50/- on each count, totaling Rs. 600/ -. 1,000/- into one of Rs. 50/-(Rupees fifty only) on each count. Accordingly, the conviction imposed on the petitioner by the Trial Court is confirmed and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-on each count is modified into one of Rs. 50/- on each count, totaling Rs. 600/ -. It is represented that the fine imposed by the Trial Court, viz. Rs. 12. 000/-was paid by the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to refund the balance fine amount of Rs. 11,400/-as has been paid by the petitioner to him, on receipt of the copy of this order. ( 8 ) EXCEPT the above modification in the quantum of fine in other respects the judgment of the Trial Court is confirmed and the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed except modification in Quantum of fine.