JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The complainant/petitioner herein instituted a complaint against the respondents/ accused herein for theirs infracting the provisions of Section 49 read with Section 42 of the H.P. Tourism and Trade Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The breach aforesaid at the instance of the accused/respondents occurred on theirs operating a hotel without theirs obtaining from the competent authority concerned its apposite mandatory registration. The breach aforesaid on the part of the respondents/accused, as apparent on a reading of paragraph 7 of the complaint, constrained the competent authority to levy a composition fee of Rs.1,28,700/- upon the accused/respondents, composition fee whereof stood calculated by the competent authority from 22.12.1998 to 24.2.2000 where within the apposite breach occurred. The aforesaid amount as apparent on a perusal of the relevant records remained un-deposited by the respondents/accused. The effect of non deposit by the respondent/accused of the aforesaid amount constrained the complainant/ petitioner herein to institute a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate concerned where before whom the respondents/accused confessed their guilt whereupon a fine of Rs.5000/- stood imposed upon each of the accused/respondents. 2. The complainant/petitioner herein standing aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate concerned preferred an appeal therefrom before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba. The learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in his rendition had assessed fine at the rate of Rs.100/- per day calculated from 25.2.2000 upto 18.11.2002. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba did not proceed to assess fine upon the respondents/ accused from 22.12.1998 upto 24.2.2000, though even within the aforesaid period, the respondents/accused had infracted the provisions of Section 42 of the Act whereupon composition fee stood assessed by the competent authority, composition fee whereof on remaining un-deposited by the respondents/accused, an apposite averment in consonance therewith stood manifested in the complaint. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent has submitted with force of the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, Chamba lacking in jurisdictionally vigour qua the appeal constituted before him by the complainant/petitioner herein standing barred by the provisions of Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the “Cr.P.C.), provisions whereof mandate on an accused pleading guilty whereupon he stands convicted bars the aggrieved to institute an appeal therefrom before the competent Appellate Court. However, the aforesaid submission is unacceptable, as Clause (b) of Section 375 of the Cr.P.C., excludes the embargo against preferment of an appeal by the aggrieved where the accused pleads guilty besides, stands sentenced predominantly when the legality of the sentence imposed upon him is contested by the aggrieved. Consequently, with the aggrieved/complainant standing aggrieved by the quantum of sentence of fine imposed upon the accused/respondents for theirs infracting the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act, grievance whereof stood engendered by the sentence of fine as stood imposed upon them by the Magistrate concerned for theirs breaching the statutory provisions of the Act transgressing the ordained method qua its computation, whereupon its imposition upon the accused stood fastened with an illegality hence rendered the appeal preferred by it before the learned Sessions Judge to be within the domain of Clause (b) of Section 375 of the Cr.P.C., concomitantly, also the pronouncement of a verdict thereupon by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamaba holds jurisdictional vigour. Provisions of Section 375 of the Cr.P.C., read as under:- “375. No Appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal.- (a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or (b) if the conviction is by a Court of Sessions, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.” 4. Since, the accused/respondents had before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned confessed their guilt, the effect thereof is of theirs admitting their liability to pay to the complainant/petitioner herein the statutory sums of money fastenable upon them as fine for theirs infracting the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. In sequel, the order of the Judicial Magistrate concerned whereby it had imposed a fine of Rs.5000/- upon each of the accused/respondents appears to be per se infracting the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, provisions whereof proclaim of in the event of breach of its provisions occurring, breach whereof being a continuing one besides with no evidence existing on record qua the classification of the hotel, his not imposing upon the accused the minimum statutory fine of Rs.100/- per day, renders his verdict to be jurisdictionally void. In aftermath, also the orders of the learned Sessions Judge while levying fine upon the accused/respondents from 25.2.2000 to 18.11.2002 is per se in transgression of the mandate of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act which contrarily enjoined upon the learned Sessions Judge to from 22.12.1998 upto 24.2.2000 where within for reasons aforesaid the breach occurred besides uptill the respondents/accused breaching the provisions of Section 42 of the Act levy fine upon the respondents/accused quantified in a sum of Rs.100/- per day. The learned Sessions Judge Chamba while not levying upon the accused/respondents fine at the rate of Rs.100/- per day from 20.2.1998 uptill the continuance of breach by the respondents/accused qua the apposite statutory provisions, has committed a gross impropriety. In sequel, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order stands quashed and set aside. The respondents/accused are directed to from 22.12.1998 upto theirs producing before the competent authority the apposite certificate qua theirs obtaining the registration of their hotel from it, pay to the competent authority fine at the rate Rs.100/- per day within one month from today. However, in case, the aforesaid quantum of fine computed at a rate of Rs.100/- per day stands deposited by the respondent/accused before the competent authority, no insistence be made upon them for theirs depositing the aforesaid quantum of fine before it.