STATE Vs. K S KARUPPANNA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is the appellant. The appeal is filed against the Judgment made in C.A. No. 22/85 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gobi, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable u/S. 23 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act and Rule 1 and Rule 4(1)(3) read with Rule 3 and Rule 2 read with Rule 38 (1) and Rule 3 read with 38(2) of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Rules, 1959.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the accused is the owner of a toddy shop in T.S. No. 43 and at D.No. 9/122, Dharampuram Road, Kolappalur. On 18-9-84 at 4-30 p.m. when the shop was kept open, P.W. 1 Labour Inspector of Gobi inspected his shop and found the accused attending to his business. Natesan and Chandran were the two employees working in the toddy shop. P.W. 1 did not find the establishment register, register sheet, the timing of the shop and also the inspection note book. P.W. 1 found these irregularities and prepared a report on 12-3-1984. Even when P.W. 1 asked the accused to produce those records he could not do so. Then, he issued a show-cause notice to the accused for violating the above said provision of Rules and the accused did not give any reply at all within the time. Then he submitted his proposal on 5-4-1984 to the Inspector of Labour and on receipt of the sanction order on 12-4-1984 he filed the charge-sheet against the accused on 2-5-1984. The prosecution has marked Exs. P1 to P5. The accused when questioned u/S. 313, Cr. P.C. referring to the incriminating circumstances found from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The accused has examined one Gopalakrishna as defence witness. He was excise officer in the Taluk Office, Gobi. To a question put to him in the chief (exam.) whether toddy is a refreshment, D.W. 1 deposed he did not know. Then to another question put to him in chief examination whether the toddy shop is a refreshment stall for which D.W. 1 replied that he did not know about it. The learned Magistrate on consideration of oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty for violation of above said rules and convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- under three counts in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week under each count. The accused filed an appeal, in C.A. No. 22 of 1985 before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gobi. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the accused and directed refund of the fine amount to the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed this appeal.

(3.) The learned public prosecutor is unable to point out any provision in the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act, 1958 to show that a toddy shop is also a restaurant as per the definition u/S. 2(12) of the- Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act 1958. The said Section defines, 'restaurant' means any premises in which is carried on the business of the supply of refreshments or meals to the public or a class of the public for consumption on the premises. Toddy cannot be said to be a refreshment or a meal. Only when refreshment or meals are supplied to the public then only it would be called as restaurant. In my opinion, toddy cannot be called a refreshment or meal at any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the accused is illegal and in that view, the judgment of the lower appellate court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.