Rudhmal vs Inspector, Indore Municipality

Nevaskar, J.—Accused Rudhmal as the employer of his cycle-shop is said to have failed to specify the day in a week on which his servants were entitled to be off duty and not to have maintained a register as required by Rule 13 (1) of the Rules framed u/s 62 of the Act. The accused was prosecuted for transgression of the provisions of Section 16 (1) and Rule 18 (1) on the aforesaid allegations. He was found guilty by the Municipal Magistrate Indore and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in respect of each of the aforesaid two offences.

The accused preferred revision-petition against his conviction. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was inclined to hold that the offence u/s 16 (1) read with Section 47 (b) of the Act was not established. As regards the offence transgression of Rule 18(1) he held that the same was duly established. He, however, was of the opinion that the amount of fine for the latter offence was too heavy. He therefore has made a reference to this Court u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for acquitting the accused in respect of the offence u/s 16 (1) read with Section 47 (b) and for reduction of the sentence in respect of the other charge.

As regards the reduction of sentence the reference cannot be accepted. It is clear from the penal provision contained in Section 47 of the Madhya Bharat Shops and Establishment Act that the minimum amount of fine with which the accused is liable to be punished is Rs. 25.

As regards the offence u/s 16 (1) read with Section 47 (b) of the Act the allegation of the complainant is that the accused did not specify the day in a week on which his employees were entitled to be off duty. In the evidence that was adduced to establish this fact all that the only deponent Chaturbhuj Dhaneria stated is that when he inspected the premises he found the employees working and that the material form required to be filled. In was found blank. The mere fact, that the employees on a particular day were found working or that a particular form is not filled in, would not be enough to establish an offence u/s 16 (1) read with Section 47 (b) of the Act. The prosecution have failed to establish the facts necessary for the purpose of bringing home the guilt to the accused.

The reference is therefore accepted so far as the conviction of the accused u/s 16 (1) read with section 47 (b) of the Act is concerned. The order of conviction and sentence thereunder is set aside and he is acquitted of this charge, Fine if paid shall be refunded. In other respect the reference is rejected.