Skip to content


Public Prosecutor Vs. Rathinam (A.) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1970)ILLJ295Mad
AppellantPublic Prosecutor
RespondentRathinam (A.)
Cases ReferredPublic Prosecutor v. Sundaradara Rao
Excerpt:
- .....appeal has been preferred by the state public prosecutor against the order of acquittal by the sub divisional magistrate, erode, in s.t.r. no. 74 of 1966 under section 245(1), criminal procedure code, this is a very simple case. the respondent is the manager of sivaram vilas press, erode. p. w. 1, shanmaga vadivel, is the assistant labour inspector. he inspected the said press on 20 january 1966 and found certain defects. he issued a show-cause notice to the respondent through his office peon f. w. 2 on 2 april 1966, but the respondent refused to receive the said notice. hence, a complaint was filed by p. w. 1 against the respondent for having contravened the provisions of section 46 of the madras shops and establishments act, 1947.2. the respondent when questioned denied having refused.....
Judgment:

Krishnaswami Reddi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the State Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal by the Sub divisional Magistrate, Erode, in S.T.R. No. 74 of 1966 under Section 245(1), Criminal Procedure Code, This is a very simple case. The respondent is the manager of Sivaram Vilas Press, Erode. P. W. 1, Shanmaga Vadivel, is the Assistant Labour inspector. He inspected the said press on 20 January 1966 and found certain defects. He issued a show-cause notice to the respondent through his office peon F. W. 2 on 2 April 1966, but the respondent refused to receive the said notice. Hence, a complaint was filed by P. W. 1 against the respondent for having contravened the provisions of Section 46 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.

2. The respondent when questioned denied having refused to receive the notice and stated that he was neither the manager nor an employee of the press. He also denied his relationship with the press. The learned Sub divisional Magistrate held that there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence or P. W. 1, a responsible officer, that the respondent was the manager of the press and that the show-cause notice was issued to him. But, however, the learned Subdivision Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the main ground that, under Section 4(1)(a) of the said Act, the managers were exempt. Section 4(1)(a) runs:

Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to persons employed in any establishment in a position of management.

He also relied upon the decision in Public Prosecutor v. Sundaradara Rao 1963 M.L.J. Crl. 357, wherein it is held that the intention of the Government by inserting Section 4 was to exempt persons holding the position of a manager or that of a subordinate to him in the management from the purview of the Act. The learned Public Prosecutor is unable to show that the order of acquittal on the ground stated by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate is wrong.

3. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //