The imprisonment in default of payment of fine cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment that can be awarded for the offence.

SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 11th September, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, A&N Islands, Port Blair in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2015.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed there under the appellants have preferred this appeal under the provision of section 374/375 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter-alia on the ground that on 11th September, 2015 when the case was fixed for framing of the charges the Trial Court decided to read out the charges through a Burmese interpreter and owing to non-knowing of the Burmese language, neither the Court nor the Counsel engaged by the State to defend the accused could properly understand the stand taken by the accused persons and that the order of conviction has been passed on a total non consideration of the vital fact that the accused appellants are poor fisherman and came to the territorial limits of India by mistake and as such, the order of conviction and the fine imposed on him is excess and as such the same is liable to be modified for the reasons that there is no sufficient evidence or material brought by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case to show that the accused appellants committed the offences as alleged and without any basis only on the basis of the pleading of guilty that too on the basis of the sole interpretation of the interpreter, and that the accused appellants are in judicial custody since his arrest i.e. on 05.11.2014 and is in jail for nearly 1 year. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the State has already confiscated the vessel of the appellants worth lakhs of rupees and hence the fine imposed ought not to have been imposed. It is further pointed out that the accused appellants entered into the territory of India by mistake and not with mala-fide motive. Accordingly, the appellant has prayed for modification of the order of conviction.

3. This memo of appeal goes to show that the appellants had challenged the entire order of conviction.

4. The chronological event leading to instant appeal is that as many as 07 accused persons who are Burmese nationals had entered into India on 14.11.2014 Shri Sudhir Shukla, Dy. Commandant, Captain of Aircraft, submitted a report with the Andaman & Nicobar Police contending inter-alia that the Helicopter CG820 was launched at 0700 hours, he cited suspicious foreigners boat operation off North Sentinel Island. Boat had foreign nationals at board with Jerricanes and Diving Equipments. Repeated efforts made to communicate with the boat but the crew did not respond and started fleeing. Warning indication given to boat and directed to proceed towards Port Blair. The base was also informed regarding the fact. Thereafter, the Helicopter landed back and after refuelling again launched at 10.15 hours and relocated the foreign boat at 10.45 hours. The boat was thereafter, apprehended with the help of ICGS Rajshree and the foreign poachers were medically examined and handed over to the A&N Police. Among them, one suspicious accused was apprehended from the coast of North Sentinel Island. On the basis of report, FIR No. 497/14 dated 05.11.2014 was chalked out and the accused persons were produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under arrest. The investigation ended in the charge sheet vide No. 313 of 2015 dated 12.03.2015. The investigation disclosed that all the accused persons are the Myanmares poachers and they came to the territorial water area of India without any valid documents and the sole purpose of poaching is to collect the sea cucumber.

5. It appears from the order impugned that the boat along with material in the boat were seized by the police and finding sufficient materials they were produced before the Court. As the accused persons pleaded guilt