STATE OF BIHAR Vs. GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State from an order of a magistrate at Motihari dated 29 April 1954, acquitting the respondent under Section 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE respondent Gopal Singh is an owner of a cloth shop in Motihari. Saroj Kant Dutt, P. W. 1, is an inspector appointed under the Weekly Holidays Act (Act XVIII of 1942 ). At about 8-30 p. m. on the night of 30 August 1963, this inspector went to the shop of the respondent along with his stenographer and an orderly peon with a view to inspecting the shop under the provisions of the Weekly Holidays Act. . The inspector deposed at the trial that he found "the shop was opened. " It was a Sunday and according to the inspector's evidence all shops at Motihari are to be kept closed on Sundays under the aforesaid Act. The inspector further deposed that he saw one man named Binda Prasad in that shop working along with the respondent. The inspector then asked the respondent to produce the closure notice which should be under the provisions of the Act permanently exhibited in a prominent place of the shop, but the respondent could not produce any such notice, and the inspector also found no such notice hung up anywhere in the shop. The inspector then asked for the production of certain registers, but the respondent was unable to produce any such register. In the circumstances, the inspector made a report for the prosecution of the respondent and the respondent was prosecuted for contravening the provisions of Section 3 of the Weekly Holidays Act and for having committed breaches of certain rules framed under Section 10 of the Act.

(3.) AT the trial in the Court below, there were examined on behalf of the prosecution the Inspector, to whose evidence I have already made a reference, and his stenographer, P. W. 2. There was also examined on behalf of the respondent a defence witness, who is the brother of Binda Prasad, who, as I have already stated, was found according to the inspector working with the respondent at that shop that night. This defence witness was examined to show that Binda Prasad was not an employee of that shop and that the respondent himself is the owner of the shop and manages it himself. According to the defence, therefore, there was no employee at the shop of the respondent.