P R NERURKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both the appeals involve common questions they can be conveniently disposed of by this judgment. Facts of Appeal No. 751 of 1982

(2.) UPON a complaint instituted by the appellant Mr. P. R. Nerurkar, an Inspector appointed under section 15 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of Presidency Magistrate, 16th Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay on 21-4-1980 complaining that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) who were carrying on export business amongst other things in garments, had contravened Clause 14 of the Cloth Markets or Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) framed by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the aforesaid Act, they had committed offence punishable under Clause 44 read with Clause 14 of the aforesaid Scheme and section 3 (3) of the Act, the respondents were prosecuted but by his judgment and order dated 16-4-1982 (in Criminal Case No. 35/s of 1980) the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay has acquitted the respondents of the same offence. The original complainant has challenged the said acquittal in this appeal filed under section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) THE case set out in the complaint, Ex. C was that the respondent No. 2 was engaged in selling, purchasing, trading, packing or acting as agent in cloth markets or shops in Greater Bombay. It was engaged in scheduled employment mentioned in Item No. 2 of the schedule to the Act. The respondent No. 2 was situated at Jolly Maker Chamber No. 2, 11th floor, Nariman Point, Bombay-21. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were the directors of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 was established in 1972. However, despite several requests, the respondents did not get respondent No. 2 registered with the Board by applying in form A appended to the said Scheme as was required to be done on the date of starting of the business as provided in Clause 14 of the Scheme. Thus the respondents not having applied for registration under Clause 14 of the Scheme they were liable to be punished under Clause 44 of the Scheme.