STATE Vs. P SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli in S.T.C. No. 392 of 1977 acquitting the Respondent-accused for an offence under section 33 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, ]966, for contravening rules 26 (1), 36 (1) and 36 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act, the State has preferred this Criminal Appeal.)

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W. 1 the Assistant Inspector of Labour, V. Circle, Tiruchirapalli Inspector Uriyadi Mark Cigar Company, situated at 65, Varaganeri Bazaar, Tiruchirapalli, which is a .cigar industrial premises. as defined under section 2 (i) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, hereinafter to be referred to as .the Act..THE accused is the .employer. as defined under section 2 (g) of the Act. On. inspection at 1-15 p.m. on 8th June, 1977, P.W. 1 found:(i) there was no exhibition in the cigar industrial premises of a notice in Form No. IV specifying clearly the daily hours of work, intervals for rest and weekly holiday to the employees employeed in a cigar industrial premises (ii) failure to maintain a register .muster roll. in form No XIII in respect of the employees employed in the said premises and (iii) failure to maintain a home-workers. employment register in Form No. XV containing the names and particulars of all the home-workers employed and to keep it up to date on the basis of the entries in the home-workers. log books. -THEse contraventions of Rules are against the provisions of rules 26 (1)36 (1) and 36 (2), (3). P.W. 1 further found 20 workers who were bringing cigars made out of the tobacco taken form the said premises. On the contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, a show cause notice Exhibit P-2 was sent to the accused. Exhibit P-1 is the inspection report of P.W. 1. Exhibit P-3 is the reply of the accused to the show cause notice Exhibit P-2. THE prosecution has also has filed Exhibit 4 wherein the accused has attempted to get a licencee under the Act. According to P.W. 1preparation for .cigar. M.O. 1 is different from that of cheroot () M.O. 2 . P.W. 1 in Exhibit P-1 has mentioned the names of workers who were actually employed at the time of the inspection and also the names of 13 persons out of the 20 who were engaged in bringing cigars made out of the tobacco taken from the premises.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate acquitted the accused onthe ground that apart from P.W. 1.s inspection report, there is nothing to show that the workers who were working in the premises of the accused were employed by the accused. He was not prepared to accept the evidence of P.W. 1 that 20 persons were taking tobacco from the premises of the accused and bringing them back as cigars. He felt the need of corroboration of P.W. 1.s evidence. Further, he was inclined to accept the defence evidence that cigar is different from cheroot.