Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.
1. I have perused the records and heard the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sun-daralingam for the employer, Thangiah Nadar, a cloth merchant in Madura district. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded that the wage periods were fixed as required by law. His contention was that the wages were not paid before the expiry of the fifth day after the last day of the wages period as required by Section 32(1) of the Madras shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and that the respondent's day book and ledger summoned for by the Court and pro-duced in Court would have proved this but that the lower Court wrongly refused to look into them, and, therefore the acquittal must be set aside. Now, a day book and ledger are only secondary evidence. Accounts do not prove themselves, nor are they conclusive. If the prosecution had examined some employee to show that he was not paid within the stipulated period or even some others to prove it, (if all the employees are in such mortal terror of Thangiah Nadar that they would not depose against him even regarding this), then the day, book and ledger could have been relevant supple-mentary evidence. The prosecution failed to do this. It did not examine even Mahalingam, an employee readily available. So I see no reason to interfere with the acquittal. An acquittal is a valuable right and should not be lightly set aside even at the instance of the State. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.