Mandatory minimum fine under the Employees' State Insurance Act cannot be reduced; sentencing discretion extends only to imprisonment.

A penal provision under the Employees' State Insurance Act fixing a minimum fine of five thousand rupees leaves no discretion to reduce or waive that fine where the proviso relaxes only imprisonment for adequate and special reasons. The statute's language is clear, and the proviso cannot be read to extend the sentencing discretion beyond imprisonment. Accordingly, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment within the proviso, but the statutory minimum fine remains mandatory for offences covered by clause (b).

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a conviction under Section 85(a)(i)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the court has discretion to impose no fine or a fine lower than the statutory minimum of five thousand rupees, or whether the only discretion is to reduce the term of imprisonment.

Analysis: The provision prescribes imprisonment with a minimum term and also mandates a fixed fine of five thousand rupees in cases covered by clause (b). The proviso expressly relaxes only the term of imprisonment for adequate and special reasons and does not contain any corresponding relaxation regarding fine. The statutory scheme reflects a deterrent object for an economic offence and the language used is clear and unambiguous. The discretion conferred by the proviso is therefore confined to imprisonment alone, and the fine cannot be reduced below the statutory minimum.

Conclusion: The court has no discretion to impose a fine of less than five thousand rupees; the minimum fine is mandatory, and the question is answered in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a penal provision fixes a minimum fine and its proviso relaxes only imprisonment, the court cannot read into the statute any discretion to reduce or waive the fine.

---