( 1 ) THESE three appeals for the enhancement of sentence by the State of Gujarat are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20-1-1993, passed by Mr. K. K. Vaisya, the learned J. M. F. C. , Kadi, rendered in three different criminal Cases being Nos. 1026, 1027 and 1400 of 1992, wherein respondent Tha. Somaji Jamaji, who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short-Act) on his pleading guilty, was convicted for the same and sentenced till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 20. 00 in each case, and in default, to undergo further S. I. for two days.

( 2 ) TO state prosecution case briefly therespondent on three different dates, viz. , 7-2-1992 at 23-50 hours, 5-3-1992 at 11-45 hours, and 19-5-1992 at 13-45 hours, was found in possession of illicit liquor of the quantity - 2 litres, 16 litres and 2 litres respectively in the public place at Kadi. Thereafter, when challaned before the Court, he pleaded guilty and the learned Magistrate accepting the same, convicted and sentenced him as stated above in para-1 of this judgment giving rise to the present three appeals for enhancement of the sentence. Incidentally, it may also be stated that the plea of guilty of the respondent came to be recorded on the very day, i. e. , 20-1-1993 immediately followed by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence.

( 3 ) ON perusal of the impugned judgment and orders, it transpires to be stated at the very outset that the same are not only unduly lenient and manifestly unjust, but the same are in total disregard to the specific provisions contained in Sec. 66 of the Act and is also perverse and ex-facie result of the plea bargaining. In order to appreciate this, it is necessary first of all to refer to the relevant provision under sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Act, which reads as under :"s. 66 : Penalty for illegal cultivation and collection of hemp and other matters : (1) (a) Whoever in contravention of the provision of this Act, or of rule, regulation or order made, or of any licence, permit, pass or authorization issued, thereunder - (b) consumes, uses, possesses or transports any intoxicant (other than opium) or hemp - (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (i) xxx xxx xxx provided that in the absence of special and adequate 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 five hundred rupees ; (ii) for a second offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees : provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not to be less than six months and fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees ; (iii) for a third or subsequent offences, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees : provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than nine months and fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees. "

( 4 ) NOW, the very bare reading of the aforesaid Sec. 66 (1) (b) alongwith the proviso appended thereto clearly demonstrates as to how and upto what extent the impugned orders of sentence are illegal and perverse and suffers from the patent vice of the plea-bargaining. From the impugned judgment and orders, it also appears that the learned Magistrate before passing the same has not cared to read the provisions of Sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Act alongwith the proviso appended thereto. Under such circumstances, on mechanically accepting the plea of guilt without the respondent-accused given to understand that he is liable to the minimum punishment of three months and/or still further sentence as prescribed u