JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The petitioners were caught playing cards in the house belonging to petitioner No. 1 and cash of Rs. 10,640/- was attached. The petitioner were prosecuted under sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The petitioners pleaded guilty to the substance of accusation explained to them. The trial Court convicted petitioner No. 1 under section 3 of the said Act and he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 500/- in default S.I. for 7 days in accordance with the proviso to section 3 of the said Act. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 were convicted for the offence under section 4 of the said Act and they were sentenced to S.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default 7 days S.I. in terms of proviso to section 4 of the said Act. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, but the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners have come in revision and the revision was admitted only on the quantum of sentence. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned P.P. were heard. 3. The entire controversy centres around the punishable clause read with the proviso which is contained in section 3 and section 4 of the said Act. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant part of sections 3 and 4 of the said Act, which read as under : Section 3. ... "Punishment for keeping common gaming-house. -Whoever - (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) ... shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees: Provided that - (i) for the first offence, such imprisonment shall not be less than one month and the fine shall not be less than two hundred rupees, (ii) for the second offence, such imprisonment shall not be less than three months and the fine shall not be less than three hundred rupees, and (iii) for the third or subsequent offence, such imprisonment shall not be less than six months and the fine shall not be less than five hundred rupees." Section 4 ... "Punishment for gaming in common gaming-houses,- (1) Whoever is found in any common gaming-house gaming or present for the purpose of gaming shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. Provided that - (a) for the first offence, such imprisonment shall not be less than one month and the fine shall not be less than two hundred rupees; (b) for the second offence, such imprisonment shall not be less than three months and the fine shall not be less than three hundred rupees, and (c) for the third or subsequent offence, such imprisonment shall not be less than six months and the fine shall not be less than five hundred rupees. (2) Any person found in any common gaming-house during any gaming therein shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been there for the purpose of gaming." 4. On the issue in question as to whether sentence of imprisonment is mandatory, as also imposition of fine under sections 3 and 4 of the said Act, there is a judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in (Bhalchandra Anant Mayekar and others v. State)1, 1990 Cri.L.J. 685. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the law laid down in Bhalchandra Anant Mayekar and others v. State (supra) is no longer good law in the light of subsequent judgments of the Apex Court. On the other hand, learned P.P. has submitted that the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in Bhalchandra Anant Mayekar and others v. State, (supra) is rendered per incuriem in the light of the previous and subsequent rulings of the Apex Court interpreting similar provisions as contained in sections 3 and 4 of the said Act. 5. Learned Single Judge in the said Judgment has held that the expression 'and also' used in sections 3 and 4 cannot be read 'in addition' as a mandate and, therefore, it is open to the Magistrate either to award substantive imprisonment or impose fine or both. It was further held that in so far as provisio is concerned, if the Magistrate chooses to award substantive imprisonment or fine, then depending upon the first, second, third and subsequent offences, it cannot be less than the minimum provided in the proviso. It was further held that in so far as provisio is concerned, if the Magistrate chooses to award substantive imprisonment or fine, then depending upon the first, second, third and subsequent offences, it cannot be less than the minimum provided in the proviso. In order to come to the said conclusion, the learned Judge had relied upon a judgment of the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in (Emperor v. Peter D'Souza)2, A.I.R. 1949 Bombay 41; a judgment of the Single Judge in (State v. Namgonda Jayagonda Patil)3, A.I.R. 1964 Bombay 5 and a judgment of the Apex Court in (Chern Taong Shang v. Commander S.D. Naijal)4, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 603. 6. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court was dealing with amended section 43 of the Bombay Abkari Act, relevant portion of which reads as under. "Shall, on conviction, be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000; Provided that in the absence of special reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than three months and fine shall not be less than Rs. 500." The Full Bench held that the word "punishable" imports discretion and it is left to the discretion of the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment or a sentence of fine or both and as words "such imprisonment and fine" occurring in proviso referred to in the preceding clause, also indicate that the sentence is left to the discretion of the Court. It was further held that it is, therefore, not obligatory upon the Court to impose both the sentence of imprisonment and sentence of fine. 7. In State v. Namgonda Jayagonda Patil and others (supra), the High Court was dealing with sections 4 and 5 of Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, which reads as under : "Section 4. Whoever keeps ... a common gaming house... shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and with fine; Provided that : (a) For a first offence such imprisonment shall not be less than one month and fine shall not be less than two hundred rupees. Section 5. Whoever is found in any common gaming house ... a common gaming house... shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and with fine; Provided that : (a) For a first offence such imprisonment shall not be less than one month and fine shall not be less than two hundred rupees. Section 5. Whoever is found in any common gaming house ... shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to six months and with fine; Provided that : (a) For a first offence such imprisonment shall not be less than one month and fine shall not be less than two hundred rupees." In the said Judgment it was held that the word "punishable" as contrasted with the word "punished" must be given its proper meaning and, so construed, it is not susceptible of the construction that by its use the Legislature has deprived the courts of their discretion to sentence the accused either to a term of imprisonment or to pay a fine. A key to the proper interpretation of the provisions contained in section 4 was sought to be found in the analogous provisions in section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. It was pointed out that it is clear from section 302 that when it was intended to deprive Courts of a discretion not to impose a sentence of imprisonment, the language used was that the person shall be punished with death or that he shall be punished with imprisonment for life. It was further observed therein that the wording of section 392 like the wording of section 302, makes it clear that if a person is held guilty of robbery, then there is no option left to the Court not to sentence the offender to a term of imprisonment. It was pointed out that the view that by reasons of the fact that the word 'and', is used in section 4, it is obligatory upon the Courts to punish an offender both with imprisonment and with fine is not sustainable. Reliance was placed for coming to the said conclusion on the Full Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Peter D'Souza (supra). 8. Reliance was placed for coming to the said conclusion on the Full Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Peter D'Souza (supra). 8. Learned Single Judge in Bhalchandra Anant Mayekar and others v. State, (supra), after relying upon the Full Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Peter D'Souza (supra) and State v. Namgonda Jayagonda Patil (supra), as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court in Chern Taong Shang v. Commander S.D. Naijal (supra) has come to the following conclusion: "Sections 3 and 4 of the Act will have to be read as discretionary and the expression 'and-also' cannot be read 'in addition' and a mandate. It is, therefore, open to a Magistrate either to award substantive imprisonment or impose a fine or both. Insofar as the proviso is concerned if the Magistrate chooses to award substantive imprisonment or fine, then, depending upon the first, second, third and subsequent offences, it cannot be less than the minimum provided in the proviso." In Chern Taong Shang v. Commander S.D. Naijal (supra), the Apex Court while interpreting the expression "shall also be liable to confiscation" had held that in the context the words do not leave any discretion to the Magistrate or the Court to make no order of confiscation of the vessel as soon as the masters of the vessel are convicted under sections 10 and 11 or 12 of Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981. It was further laid down that the Legislative intent in making this provisions is to provide deterrent punishment to prohibit fishing in exclusive economic zone of India by foreign vessel in infringement of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and the conditions of permit or licence. 9. I may at this state refer to some rulings of the Apex Court wherein analogous provisions like the one contained in sections 3 and 4 of the said Act have been examined and interpreted. In (Ram Shankar Misra v. State of U.P.)5, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 727, the Apex Court was dealing with section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which reads as under : "27. In (Ram Shankar Misra v. State of U.P.)5, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 727, the Apex Court was dealing with section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which reads as under : "27. Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter.---Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes, (a) ......................... (b) any drug- (c) ......................... (ii) Without a valid licence as required under Clause (c) of section 18 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year and of fine of less than five thousand rupees;" The Apex Court has observed that section 27 prescribes that the minimum sentence for the offence shall not be less than one year unless and until such reasonings are recorded in writing by the Court. Neither the trial Court, nor the Appellate Court had given any reasons for imposing sentence of one month. Request for reduction of term of imprisonment to fine was rejected on the ground that as provisions of law stand, it was not possible to do so. In other words, the Apex Court had come to the conclusion that the sentence of imprisonment was mandatory and it could not be converted into fine. 10. In (M/s. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, Bangalore and others v. State of Karnataka)6, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 809 while dealing with section 27a(ii) which reads as under : "Whoever himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes- (a) ........... 10. In (M/s. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, Bangalore and others v. State of Karnataka)6, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 809 while dealing with section 27a(ii) which reads as under : "Whoever himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes- (a) ........... (i) xx xx xx (ii) without a valid licence as required under Clause (c) of section 18, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the Court may, for any special reasons to be recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year; (b) any drug other than a drug referred to in Clause (a) in contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." had held that the sentence of imprisonment is compulsory thereunder in view of section 27(a) and the proviso. 11. The Apex Court in (State of Orissa v. Janmejoy Dinda)7, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1606 was dealing with section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which reads as under : "27. Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter.---Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes, - (a) ................... (b) any drug - (i) .................... Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter.---Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes, - (a) ................... (b) any drug - (i) .................... (ii) Without a valid licence as required under Clause (c) of section 18 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year and of fine of less than five thousand rupees;" After placing reliance on its earlier judgments, in Ram Shankar Misra v. State of U.P. (supra) wherein it was laid that the sentence under section 27 of the Act cannot be reduced to one of fine and M/s. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, Bangalore and others v. State of Karnataka (supra), wherein it was laid down that a sentence of imprisonment is compulsory under section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, the Apex Court had laid down :--- "But in view of the proviso to the section (as quoted above) it cannot be said that the Court has no jurisdiction to reduce the sentence of imprisonment below the period of six months. If the conditions specified in the proviso are present, the Court has the power to reduce the sentence ever further down. For that there must be adequate and special reasons and such reasons should be recorded in the judgment and there shall still be a term of imprisonment and fine in the reduced sentence." Thus, the Apex Court has held that even if the sentence is reduced under the proviso, the sentence of imprisonment and fine is mandatory. 12. In (Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and others)8, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2881, the Apex Court has pointed out that the expression "shall also be liable to fine" does not give discretion to the Court to levy or not to levy fine and imposition of sentences of both imprisonment and fine are imperative. 12. In (Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and others)8, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2881, the Apex Court has pointed out that the expression "shall also be liable to fine" does not give discretion to the Court to levy or not to levy fine and imposition of sentences of both imprisonment and fine are imperative. The Apex Court had relied upon its earlier Judgment in M/s. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka (supra) to come to the said conclusion. In this case, the Apex Court disapproved the view taken by a Single Judge of the Patna High Court in (Tetar Gope v. Ganauri Gope)9, A.I.R. 1968 Patna 287 who took the view that expression "shall also liable to fine" in section 327 I.P.C. does not mean that a sentence of fine must be imposed in every case of conviction in that section. The Single Judge had said : "Such an expression has been used in the Penal Code only in connection with those offences where the Legislature has provided that a sentence of imprisonment is compulsory. In regard to such offences, the legislature has left a discretion in the Court to impose also a sentence of fine in appropriate cases in addition to the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment which alone is obligatory." The Apex Court held that the view taken by Patna High Court is not correct since the sentence of both imprisonment and fine are imperative under the said section. 13. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, the interpretation put by learned Single Judge on sections 3 and 4 of the said Act and the conclusion that the Magistrate is free to award substantive sentence or impose fine or both cannot be said to be a good law any longer. Neither in section 3 nor in section 4 of the said Act, there is any discretion to reduce the minimum sentence prescribed thereunder for adequate or special reasons as no such provision exists. For the first offence, under sections 3 and 4 of the said Act, minimum term of imprisonment and fine has been prescribed and the Magistrate has no discretion whatsoever, but to award minimum sentence of imprisonment as well as fine prescribed thereunder, though the same can be more as contained in the substantive provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the said Act. It is also pertinent to note that the words "and also with fine" which occur in sections 3 and 4 of the said Act, reinforces the said conclusion. 14. Now coming to the case under consideration, it has been urged by learned Advocate for the petitioners that the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Bhalchandra Anant Mayekar and others v. State (supra), was required to be followed and it is in view of the said interpretation of law that the Magistrate could impose substantive imprisonment or impose fine or both; that the petitioners had pleaded guilty when the Judgment in Bhalchandra's case was in the field and, as such, in the circumstances, the sentence imposed on the petitioners is required to be substantially reduced. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned Advocate for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that in the peculiar situation which shall not be treated as precedent, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the imprisonment imposed on the petitioners to imprisonment till rising of the Court and by maintaining the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by the trial Court. The revision is, accordingly, allowed. The substantive sentences on the petitioners are reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 500/- in default S.I. for 7 days. 15. Learned Advocate for the petitioners states that the fine imposed on the petitioners shall be deposited in this Court on 7-4-2000 and that the petitioners shall also appear in this Court to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court. Revision allowed. -----