PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. M. SUBBA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these three appeals, the accused respondent is one and the same person. Though notices were sent to the sole respondent as early as on 7-9-1966. they were returned un-served with the report that the accused refused to accept the notices. Again, a notice was issued to the accused on 17-11-66 which was affixed to the outer door of the accused's residence under the provisions of Sec. 71 of the Code Criminal Procedure Still neither the accused nor any one on his behalf appeared before the Court. On 27-9-1967 when the case came up for hearing, I appointed Sri P. Satyanarayana to assist the Court as amicus curiae as no one is appearing and as this is a case where the assistance on behalf of the accused by a counsel is found necessary. Sri P. Satyanarayana-appeared on behalf of the accused. A consolidated fee of Rs. 100.00 is fixed for all the three cases.

(2.) These three appeals are preferred by the State against the orders of acquittal, passed by the Additional District Munsif-cum-First Class Magistrate, Kovali in O.C. Nos. 62, 63 and 64 of 1965. The accused in all the three appeals is one Metta Subba Reddy, employer of Tadakalur stone quarry, Briudavan, Nellore District.

(3.) The case for the prosecution is that on 13.2.65, The Labour Inspector (Central) Gudur inspected the quarry and the premises of the accused-employer and found that he did not maintain a number of registers required under the payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956 and that he did not display come of the notices as required by the Rules. The details about the offences alleged to have bean committed are un-necessary for the case. In Criminal Appeal No. 492/66, the Labour Inspector filed the complaint for the offence committed under Rules 8 (1) (i) and 8 (1) (ii) of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956. The main defence set up by the accused in the trial Court was that the Talakalur stone quarry of which the accused is the owner, does not come within the purview of the Mines Act, 1952. The contention of the accused that the quarry in question is not a mine and hence the payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956 are not applicable to him and to his quarry, has been accepted by the trial Court and the accused has been acquitted. Hence these appeals.