1. We think, as at present advised, that the Legislature, when it enacted in Section 13 of Act XIX of 1888 that persons who committed certain acts should be 'subject to a fine of ten times the amount of fees', or 'subject to a fine of ten rupees' intended that the penalties specified should be inflicted in full'. Had the penalties so specified been intended as a maximum, with a discretion to the Magistrate to inflict a smaller fine, we think that the phraseology would have been different; and that it would have been enacted that the offender should be subject, not to a fine of a specified amount, but to a fine not exceeding such any such vessel employed as aforesaid, fishing vessel, or harbour craft shall make such default as aforesaid: provided every such subsequent default be made after the expiration of one month from the date of the last conviction specified amount. Such is the phraseology of contemporaneous enactments, e.g., Act XXVII of 1837, Sections 10 and. 11, and Act XXXI of 1838, Section 29. Moreover, we should expect that a penalty imposed for then omission to take out a certificate and pay the proper fee thereon, would amount to a specified multiple of such fee, as in the case of the omission to pay stamp duties; and if the phrase 'subject to' be rightly construed in this manner in this one, place, the same interpretation must be put upon the same words, wherever they appear in the section. Upon the whole, therefore, we are of opinion, as at present advised, that the view taken by the District Magistrate is correct, and we, accordingly, direct notice to issue to Mhasnya bin Rama to show cause why the fine imposed by the Subordinate Magistrate should not be enhanced to then rupees.
2. The notice having been served, the case was heard by Kemball and Pinhey, JJ, on the 8th of March, 1883, when the Government Pleader appeared for the Crown and no one for the accused.
3. We agree in the judgment passed on the 19th of January last, and enhance the fine to ten rupees.