STATE Vs. MANOKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Assistant Inspector of Labour, Rasipuram, who was the complainant in S.T.R. Nos. 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 of 1988, has filed these appeals challenging the dismissal of those complaints under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. for the absence of the complainant on 29.1.1988 before the said Court.

(2.) THE ssistant Inspector of Labour, Rasipuram, has filed these complaints before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rasipuram, for offence under Section 11 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act for having opened the business establishments on a weekly holiday. Learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rasipuram, had taken those complaints on file and the accused persons have appeared before the said Court. On 29.1.1988 when the matter was taken up, the complainant was absent and the Magistrate dismissed all those complaints under Section 256(1), Cr.P.C. The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Rasipuram, has preferred these appeals against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) IN the result, C.A.Nos. 478, 479, 480, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486,. 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498 and 499 of 1989 are dismissed.