STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHAVAKSHAW RATANJI DEBOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against acquittal of the respondent, Shavakshaw Ratanji Deboo, in respect of breaches of Ss. 18(1) and 62 and rule 20(13)(a) of the rules framed under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act.

(2.) Sri S. A. R. Rizvi, Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hingoli, against the respondent charging him with breach of the above provision of the Shops and Establishments Act and the rules framed thereunder. In respect of S. 18(1) the complaint stated that the accused had not closed his above-said establishment on its "closed" day. In respect of S. 62 of the Act, the accusation was that the accused had not maintained registers and records provided for under the Act and the complaint in respect of rule 20(13)(a) was that he had not maintained the visit book. It appears, along with the complaint, a sanction, purporting to have been given by the District Magistrate, for prosecution of the respondent, was also filed. That is exhibited at Ex.3 in the records of the trying magistrate.

(3.) At the trial certain witnesses were examined and so was the accused. The examination of the accused under S. 342, in the case, however, disclosed that no specific question was put to the accused as to what he had to say with respect of the sanction purported to have been given by the District Magistrate. During the course of the arguments, however, the sanction given by the District Magistrate was attacked on the ground that there is no proof that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the particular case, out of which the prosecution has arisen. Neither the sanctioning order referred to such fats nor was there any other evidence aliened to show that the facts were brought to the notice of the sanctioning authority and that authority, after applying its mind, had sanctioned the prosecution of the accused. The learned magistrate accepted this contention of the accused and has acquitted him, though on facts the learned magistrate has found that the accused had committed breaches of the several provisions of the Act and the rules. The learned magistrate observed in Para. 6 of his judgment as follows : "Thus looked at, there can be no doubt that the complainant has failed to establish the validity or the sanction in the present case. Exhibit 3 does not detail the facts which constitute the contraventions. It does not even mention what documents were placed before the District Magistrate. That it is on a stereotyped form is plain to the naked eye, for except for the name of the complainant and a few other particulars, the major portion of the sanction form is nothing but a cyclostyled form. Complainant has not led any evidence on this point. It, therefore, has to be held that the sanction is defective." On this finding the learned magistrate has acquitted the respondent.