RAM NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has Come to a Division Bench on a reference made by a learned single Judge who doubted the correctness of the decision in State v. Kailash Chandra Bhargava, 1970 AWR 751.

(2.) THE applicant and one Rameshwar Prasad were convicted under Section 35 of U. P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- each or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. THE prosecution case was that on 20-3 -1971 one Sankatha Prasad Tewari, Labour Inspector, visited the oil and flour mills of the applicant and found that the attendance of one Bashir, an employee, was not recorded since 6 -3 1971 ; that column nos. 2 to 5 of the attendance register had not been filled in ; that the leave register was not maintained and that extracts in forms Ka, Kha and Ga had not been displayed. THE Labour Inspector recorded an inspection note which was signed by Rameshwar Prasad, the son of the applicant, and Bashir, an employee of the mill. Since similar breaches had been detected earlier as well the Labour Inspector filed a complaint against the two accused for violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. THE complaint was filed on 9-9-1971. THE two accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. THE trial court found the irregularities established and convicted the two accused under Section 35 of the Act and sentenced them to the fine mentioned above.

(3.) THE observations made in State v. Kailash Chandra Bhargava (supra) with deepest respect to the learned Judge deciding the same seem to be a little too wide.