A DURVASALU NAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON ORDER The accused is the revision petitioner herein. Both the criminal revisions are filed against the judgment dated 16.3.2007 made in STC.Nos.16 and 17 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Arakonam, Vellore District. While Crl.R.C.No.926 of 2007 is filed against the judgment convicting the accused for the offence under Section 11(1) and Rule 16(11) r/w 16(B) of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, Crl.R.C.No.927/2007 is filed against the judgment convicting the accused for the offence under Rule 6(1)(a)(c)(d) & (f) r/w 23(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities Rules 1977.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the shop belonging to the petitioner herein was inspected by the Assistant Labour Inspector, Arakonam on 11.7.2005 and in the course of such inspection, the following violations in the shop are noticed: (i) there is no display of the Board in the shop specifying the holidays (ii) visitor's book was not produced by the shop owner and (iii) 250 grams pocket of Broken dhal meant for sale does not contain the address of the packers, date of package, weight and rate of the good. After inspection, show cause notice was issued to the shop owner on 11.7.2005 and the shop owner duly replied the notice denying the allegations. However, not satisfied with the same, the complaints are lodged by the same officer who inspected the shop premises and the same are taken on file and the outcome of which are the orders impugned herein.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate representing the state has defended the correctness of the judgment of the trial court by contending that there is no legal impediment for the complainant to hold the investigation and file final report and in the absence of any prejudice to the petitioner, the same shall not render the prosecution version to be doubtful and vulnerable.