( 1 ) THE accused-respondent was charge sheeted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srirangapatna under Sections 279, 337 and 304a I. P. C. It was alleged against him that on 13-2-1987 at about 6. 30 AM on Mysore-K. R. Sagar road, he was driving the lorry bearing No. CMS 4617 in a rash and negligent manner and hit a bullock cart coming on the left side of the road and as a result the cart was completely damaged, two bullocks which were drawing the card died due to the injuries sustained by them, two other bullocks which were tied behind were also injured and one B. K. Ramegowda who was also badly injured died later in K. R. Hospital, Mysore. Thus this was a case involving more offences than one from rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. After the accused was released on bail and case set down for hearing the proceedings show that the case which was to be taken in its usual course on 18-1-1988 was advanced to 5-1-1988 on the request made by the accused-respondent himself by filing an application to the Court on the same day, i. e. , on 5-1-1988. He stated therein that in Mandya Accident Claims Tribunal Rs 45,000/- were awarded as compensation against him and he was too poor to pay the fine amount that might be imposed by the Court in this case and therefore he made a prayer that he may be let off with a small amount of fine. Thus throughout his application what he all pleaded was for the mercy in the hands of the Court pleading his poverty and the heavy compensation which was already awarded.

( 2 ) THE trial Court on his application advanced the case, recorded his plea and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs 600/- for all the offences collectively. Perhaps the accused felt supremely happy with this result. The State having felt aggrieved by what the Supreme court has called such lenient view as 'flea bite' sentence in cases of this nature, i approached this Court under Section 337 Cr. P. C. for enhancement of the sentence.

( 3 ) LEARNED State Public Prosecutor has asked us to act on the plea of guilt as acted by the trial Court and according to him the trial court committed an error in not sentencing the respondent separately for each of the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304a I PC by imposing a fine of Rs 600/- for all the offences. This is too lenient according to the State.

( 4 ) THE respondent's Counsel however has attacked the very conviction of the trial Court contending that the accused was given an impression that ha would be dealt with leniently and that it is almost plea bargaining violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and when he was labouring under that impression and the Court has acceded to his request for advancement, it does not amount to voluntary plea and it is violative ofi Article 21 of the Constitution. In this behalf he has invited our attention to a Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of thippeswamy vs STATE OF KARNATAKA in which the Supreme court has observed that where by reason of plea bargaining the appellant pleaded guilty did not avail of the opportunity to defend himself against the charge, which is a course he would certainly not have followed if he had known that he would not be let off with a mere sentence of fine but would be sentenced to imprisonment then the conviction could not be proper. The Supreme Court also pointed out that it would be clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution to induce or lead an accused to plead guilty under a promise or assurance that he would be let off lightly and then in appeal or revision to enhance the sentence. In our view, these observations squarely attract the facts of this case in as much as the accused was labouring under the impression that the trial Court would accede to whatever he had submitted in his application as a cause for taking a lenient view. All that he pleaded was extreme poverty and his inability to pay heavy fine amount. In our view when the trial Court proceeded to record accusati