STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHAGWANJI VALLABHDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot (for short 'ld.Magistrate') dated 01.09.1995 in Criminal Case No.2500, 2501 and 2626 of 1988, the State of Gujarat has preferred these 3 appeals under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order, the ld.Magistrate acquitted the respondents accused persons from the offence punishable under Section 22 -A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, read with Section 18 of the Minimum Wages Act, and Rules 26 -B, 26(2) and 22 of the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961.

(2.) MR .P.P. Joshi, who was Government Labour Officer and Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act ('Act' for short) had on 11.03.1988 visited the shop of the respondents, and during his visit, it was disclosed that certain labourers who were working in the shop were not issued presence -cards, pay -slips and the notice containing the details regarding rate of minimum wage etc. was not displayed in the shop. That despite the notice issued on 25.03.1988, the accused persons did not comply with the notice, and therefore, in respect of each labourer, separate criminal complaints were filed by the original complainant Mr.P.P. Joshi against the respondent accused persons in the Court of ld.Magistrate, Rajkot. Ld.Magistrate recorded the plea of the accused persons. Since the accused did not plead guilty, the ld.Magistrate recorded the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Deposition of the complainant Mr.P.P.Joshi was recorded. The prosecution examined Mr.B.M.Parmar as its witness. The prosecution produced certain documentary evidence in the case. After hearing arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, the ld.Magistrate by virtue of the impugned judgment and order acquitted the accused persons.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant State, ld.A.P.P. Mr.Mengde submitted that the ld.Magistrate committed serious error in not properly appreciating the evidence on record. That there was no reason to discard the testimony of the complainant, who is an independent person. By virtue of his duty, he inspected the shop of the accused, and the irregularities as contemplated under the Act were traced out. That the ld.Magistrate did not properly consider the relevant provisions of the Act. That the ld.Magistrate committed error in holding that there was no relationship between the accused and the labourers as that of master and servants. Therefore, it was submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the ld.Magistrate be set -aside, and the respondents accused be punished in accordance with law.