M. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the accused filed under Section 374 of the Cr. P. C. is directed against the judgment dated 7-3-1998 passed in S. C. No. 36 of 1990 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had convicted accused 1 and 2-ap- pellants, for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i. d. , to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the said offence, challenging the legality and validity of the said judgment. ( 2 ) THE Court has heard the arguments of Sri V. K. Bhat for M/s. Kumar and Kumar, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants, and Sri m. Marigowda, Additional State Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the state of Karnataka. ( 3 ) THE Court has perused the material on record and has given its anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised. ( 4 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that the accused-appellants had faced prosecution for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution had relied upon Exs. P. 10 to P. 12 and also the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 10. From the material on record, it is seen that there has been positive and acceptable evidence against the accused and the same is sufficient to spell out a case in favour of the prosecution. The learned sessions Judge had properly appreciated the evidence on record and had arrived at a right conclusion. There is no misreading of evidence by the trial Court so as to lead to perversity or miscarriage of justice. Hence, the Court holds that the judgment of the Trial Court is legal and valid insofar as merits are concerned. ( 5 ) NOW coming to the question of sentence, the Trial Court had also imposed very reasonable sentence particularly having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and seriousness of the offence proved against the accused. ( 6 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that there is yet another aspect that requires consideration of this Court. ( 6 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that there is yet another aspect that requires consideration of this Court. It is to be mentioned that in the judgment impugned, the learned Sessions Judge has not extended the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 of the Cr. P. C. to the accused. On careful perusal of the said provision, it is clear that the said provision of law postulates that the Court, while imposing sentence of imprisonment, shall extend the benefit of the said provisions to the accused. The emphasis is laid on the phrase "shall". It is needless to say that the said provision of law is mandatory in nature. It is a settled elementary principle of law that the Court should always interpret the law keeping in mind the object of legislation and such an interpretation should advance the object of legislation. In other words, the Court's endeavour should only be to expound the law and not to legislate. In view of the mandatory statutory provisions, in the opinion of this Court, the approach of the learned Sessions Judge had been totally against the canons of law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the said legislative provisions, it would be in the ends of justice if it is held that the accused shall be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 428 of the Cr. P. C. in respect of the period of detention during the investigation or trial. This Court will have to exercise appellate powers only insofar as this aspect is concerned. The discussion supra also shows that this Court has already opined that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court on merits and even in respect of sentence. ( 7 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that accused 1 and 2 had been in custody for a period of ninety days and if the benefit of provisions of Section 428 of the Cr. P. C. is extended, the accused need not undergo any sentence of imprisonment now and they will have to pay only the fine as imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by this Court. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands allowed in part. P. C. is extended, the accused need not undergo any sentence of imprisonment now and they will have to pay only the fine as imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by this Court. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands allowed in part. The judgment of the Trial Court in recording a finding of conviction of the accused under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the sentence passed thereon are hereby maintained. However, the accused are extended the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 of the Cr. P. C. The accused are granted fifteen days time to pay the fine amount, failing which the learned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The judgment of the trial Court stands modified in the above terms. --- *** --- .