HOMI J BHAJIWALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted of an offence under S. 52(f) read with rule 18(10) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five days by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Fourteenth Court, Girgaum, Bombay.

(2.) The prosecution case against the petitioner was that he along with his brother was the owner of the electroplating works in the name and style of Langlay & Co., at 357, V.P. Road, opposite Two Elephants. On 30 April, 1959, at about 11-36 a.m., inspector Patwardhan of the Shops and Establishments Department of the Bombay Municipal Corporation visited the shop of the petitioner and found that the "M" leave register and the "N" leave cards of the four employees who were in the establishment, were kept blank. A complaint, therefore, was lodged against the petitioner and his brother for contravention of rule 18(10) of the rules made under the Shops and Establishments Act, which was made punishable under S. 52(f) of the said Act. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Their main contention was that their establishment was not a shop under the Shops and Establishments Act, because no goods were sold either in retail or wholesale and no services were rendered to customers on the premises. They, however, admitted that the "M" and "N" forms were kept blank as alleged by the prosecution. At the close of the trial the case against accused 2 was withdrawn with the Court's permission.

(3.) The trial Court held that the establishment of the petitioner was a shop within the meaning of the Shops and Establishments Act and the failure to maintain the "M" and "N" forms properly filled in as required under the rules was a contravention of rule 18(10) of the rules and the petitioner was, therefore, guilty of such contravention. He, accordingly, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as stated above.