STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. JOSEPH J PALAKUNNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a common judgment which covers the appeals against C. A. Nos. 33 and 34 of 1969. on the file of the Court of the District Magistrate (J), Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. These are appeals filed by the State against the order of the District Magistrate acquitting the Respondent of the contravention of Rules 82 (1)(b), 1(c) and 1(d) of the Madras Plantation Labour Rules read with S. 36 of the Plantation Labour Act (XLIX of 1951).

(2.) P. W. 1 is the Inspector of Plantations. He is the complainant on behalf of the State. He inspected the estate owned by the Respondent on 5th, December 1968 at 9-50 a.m. The Respondent was not present. Paul Thomas, the then Superintendent of the estate, was present. P.W. 1. stated in his evidence that he demanded the registers and records that should be maintained as per the Plantation Labour Act. The Superintendent produced the inspection book. He did not produce a good number of other registers maintained under the Act. In cross-examination, P. W. 1 stated that he questioned the Superintendent and that he replied that the records were not available. Subsequently, P. W. 1 sent his inspection order marked Ex. P-2 and also sent a notice to the accused-Respondent to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for the contravention of the various rules under the Act. The said show-cause notice is marked as Ex. P-3. In his reply, the Respondent stated that most of the records and registers maintained at the estate were at Nagercoil office for routine check and verification. It was certainly open to P.W. 1 to demand the production of the said registers from the Nagercoil office for his scrutiny and inspection, which, in this case, he did not choose to do. Straightaway he obtained sanction and prosecuted the Respondent.

(3.) The trial Magistrate convicted the Respondent of the violation of various rules. But in the appeal before the District Magistrate (J), filed by the Respondent, he was acquitted of the contravention of Rules 48 (3) and 82 (1)(a) of the Plantation Labour Rules read with Section 36 of the Plantation Labour Act. In C.A. No. 34 of 1969, he was also acquitted of the violation of Rules 82 (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(d) of the Plantation Labour Rules read with S. 36 of the Plantation Labour Act.