State of Kerala has filed these appeals challenging the inadequacy of and illegality in the sentence passed on the accused. The respective accused persons in these cases have been charged with the offence punishable under Sec.55(a) of the Abkari Act. All of them pleaded guilty and have been sentenced under Sec.58 of the Act, imposing a fine of Rs.150/- on each of them.

2. The offence has been committed in the year 1995. On the date of commission of offences, in these cases, admittedly. Sec.58 read as follows:

"Whoever without lawful authority, has in his possession any quantity if liquor or of any intoxicating drug, knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported, transported or manufactured, or knowing not to have been paid therefore shall on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished with fine which may extend to (fifteen thousand rupees) or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with both."

In such circumstances, the imposition of a meagre amount of fine of Rs.150/- was ex facie wrong, illegal and improper, it is contended by the Public Prosecutor. There shall be a minimum fine of Rs.15,000/- and a term of imprisonment which may extend to one year, the Public prosecutor contends.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the accused/respondents that these appeals are not maintainable because the sentence was not imposed after trial. All the accused pleaded guilty before the court below before the trial commenced. So no appeal under Sec.377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ought to have been maintained, because the said Section provided for the State filing an appeal “in any case of conviction on a trial held by any court other than the High Court.” (emphasis supplied) As the accused persons pleaded guilty, there was no trial at all, it is submitted.

4. It is alternatively contended that as these were cases in which the accused persons guilty, no appeal ought to have been filed under Sec. 375 of the Code, "except as to the or legality of the sentence.” There is no such illegality. Therefore, the appeals shall have to be dismissed.

5. Notices have been issued in these cases on the petitions for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. Pursuant to the notice, the accused have engaged their counsel. They have filed vakalath. The delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. The cases have been posted for hearing with their names in the list. The engagement continues. It is because of that the counsel have argued vehemently raising grounds to dismiss these appeals.

6. The first contention, that the conviction was not in a case tried by the magistrate, cannot be accepted. As per Sec.238 of the Code, with regard to the trial of warrant cases, it is specifically provided that:

"When in any warrant-case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has compiled with the provisions of Sec. 207."

Therefore, it is evident that the trial commences from the time when the accused appears in court. Sec. 251 deals with the trial of summons cases by magistrates. It is provided therein that "when in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty" or not. Necessarily, it is the beginning of the trial. If he does not plead guilty, the matter will be proceed with taking evidence and based on the evidence, he will be convicted and sentenced or acquitted. When he pleads guilty, the court may in its discretion convict him thereon. Therefore, there is no basis for the submission that a conviction and sentence in a case where the accused pleaded guilty is not one on trial.

7. Even otherwise, Sec.375 of the Code provides for and appeal with regard to the legality of the sentence in cases were the accused pleads guilty. Sec.375 of the Code provides