State by Public Prosecutor vs Palaniappa Gounder

Singaravelu, J.—This is an appeal against acquittal by the State. The prosecution case is this: The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Karur, filed a complaint against the respondent-accused alleging that the respondent was manufacturing cigars in a factory and that he had not maintained the muster rolls, working hours roll, leave book, etc., and therefore, he is liable to be punished under Ss. 21(1), 22(I), 26(2), 28(1) 29(1) and 33 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, hereinafter called the Act.

The respondent accused contended that he was manufacturing only cheroots and not cigars and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to this case.

The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kulithalai held that cheroot is not cigar and therefore acquitted the accused under S. 285(1) , Crl P.C, The State has come on appeal.

The learned Public Prosecutor argued that as per S. 2(k) of the Act, the manufacturing process means and includes even packing, rolling and treating tobacco with a view to use it and sell it as cigar, and therefore, the Act is applicable to the cigar establishment of the accused. It was also argued that the cheroot and cigar are practically one and the same and that there is no difference in the manufacture or its components. The learned Public Prosecutor also relied on the rulings of this High Court reported in N. Tiagaraja filled Employer, Thanjavur v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Assistant Inspector of Labour Circle, I, Thanjavur Crl. M.P. Nos. 2173, 2177, 2466, 2475 and 2478 of l979, wherein it has been held that Cheroot is a species and the cigar is the genus and that the cheroot is the only Tamil name of Cigar. He also pointed out that in Encyclopedia Britannica it is stated that cigar is the genus and cheroot is one of the species and therefore, the Act will apply to the manufacturing of cheroots also. Following the decisions of this High Court mentioned above, I hold that both are practically the same except that there is difference in the nomenclature and the trade name. Cigar is, locally and colloquially called cheroot. Cheroot in common parlance in Tamil Nadu means rolling of tobacco for the purpose of smoking and I fail to see any difference worth mentioning between the cigar and the cheroot in the manufacture. A similar case is also disposed of today in P.P.Rs. Nagaratfmm v. State Crl. R.C. No. 151 of 1980 holding that cheroot is not different from cigar. The contention of the respondent-accused that they are different, is pressed into service only for the purpose of avoiding paying of excise duty. The result is, I hold that the respondent-accused has contravened the provisions of Ss. 4(l) read with S. 3(1)(2) of the Act and Rr.26 (1) and 36 (1) of the Rules, and therefore, the appeal is allowed and the respondent is convicted under the sections states supra and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 on each of the counts. Time for payment 6 weeks.