STATE Vs. NARHAR SAKHARAM DANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Each of these references, arises out of an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in a revision against the order of admonition passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Washim, on the accused in each case, who was prosecuted for offences punishable under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.

(2.) IN each of the cases, the Inspector of the Shops and Establishments filed a complaint against the accused on the allegation that he had violated certain provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. In Criminal Reference No. 3 of 1970, the Inspector visited the Sarafa Shop of the accused on September 27, 1968 when he found that he had not displayed the notice of weekly closure day in a conspicuous place in his shop as required under Section 18 (I) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the 'Shops Act'). He also found that he had not maintained the lime washing register even after a previous notice as required under Rule 12 (2) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Rules, 1961. In Criminal Reference No. 5 of 1970, the Inspector found in the hotel of the accused on January 25, 1969 that the accused had not sent to him the statement in the prescribed form together with the necessary fees within 80 days from the commencement of the establishment as required under Section 7 (1) and 7 (4) of the Shops Act. The accused also is said to have failed to maintain the employment register and the leave register. He also failed to display notices as required under Section 62 read with Rules 20 (2)(a to e), 20 (4), 20 (5) and 20(1) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Rules, 1961.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate convicted each of the accused for the offences with which they were charged but released each of them on admonition under Section 8 of the Central Provinces and Berar Probation of Offenders Act, 1986.