STATE Vs. SATISH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the learned City Magistrate, Bikaner, dated 9 -2 -71. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the learned public prosecutor and perused the record of the case.

(2.) A complaint was filed in the court of the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner against the accused respondents, who are office bearers and directors of the Bikaner Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar under Section 28 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, for contravention of Section 19 of the said Act under which they were required to pay Bonus to their workers. The case was fixed on 18 -1 -71 on which day one of the accused, namely, Banwarilal was act present and bailable warrants for his attendance were issued and the case was adjourned to 17.2.71 On that day one of the accused namely Mst. Indra filed her bail bonds which clearly show the latter date. After adjournment of the case on 18.1.1971 it appears that the date of hearing was changed from 17.2.01971 to 9.2.1971. No intimation of the change was given to Labour Inspector, who was a complainant in the case as such he could not present himself before the learned City Magistrate and the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 247 Cr.P.C. by his impugned judgment. On 17.2.71 the Labour Inspector appeared and filed an application that he was not informed of the change in the date and more over, he had been exempted from personal attendance on his applicant on made on 18 -1 -1971. This is clear from the order given on the application it self. The application of 17 -2 -1971 was directed to believed.

(3.) IN Municipal Council Jaipur v. Rameshwarlal 1968 Cr.L.J. 719 it was observed that when the complainant dos net appear the court is not bound to order acquittal for nonappearance of the complainant and it should proceed with the case if it is satisfied that personal attendance of complainant is not necessary.