Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5398
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K. VASUKI
A. Durvasalu Naidu
Versus
The State by Assistant Inspector for Labour
Crl.R.C.Nos.926 and 927 of 2007 & M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2007
Decided On : 14-12-2010
For the Petitioner:G. Jeremiah, Advocate.
For the Respondent:I. Nobel Noble Devakumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side).
The main legal point established is that the statutory requirements of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act do not apply to shops without employees, and the validity of charges must be assessed based on the specific circumstances and applicability of the relevant rules and provisions.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act - Violation of Sections 11(1) and Rule 16(11) r/w 16(B) and Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 - Sections 11(1), 16(1), 16(2), 23(1) - The court discussed the applicability of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act to shops without employees and the requirements for displaying weekly holidays. It also examined the contravention of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 and the validity of the charges against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with violations of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 based on an inspection of the shop premises. The accused denied the allegations and filed criminal revisions against the judgment of conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges related to the display of weekly holidays and the maintenance of a visitors book were not applicable to the shop as it had no employees. The court also upheld the conviction for contravention of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the statutory requirements to a shop without employees and the validity of the charges based on the inspection findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act did not apply to shops without employees, and therefore, the charges related to weekly holidays and visitors book maintenance were without jurisdiction. However, the court upheld the conviction for contravention of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 based on the inspection findings.
Final Decision: Crl.R.C.No.926/2007 was allowed, acquitting the accused, and Crl.R.C.No.927/2007 was dismissed, confirming the conviction. The accused was acquitted from the charges in S.T.C.No.16/2006 and the fine amount, if paid, was to be refunded. The order in S.T.C.No.17/2006 was confirmed, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
The accused is the revision petitioner herein. Both the criminal revisions are filed against the judgment dated 16.3.2007 made in STC.Nos.16 and 17 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Arakonam, Vellore District. While Crl.R.C.No.926 of 2007 is filed against the judgment convicting the accused for the offence under Section 11(1) and Rule 16(11) r/w 16(B) of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, Crl.R.C.No.927/2007 is filed against the judgment convicting the accused for the offence under Rule 6(1)(a)(c)(d) & (f) r/w 23(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities Rules 1977.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the shop belonging to the petitioner herein was inspected by the Assistant Labour Inspector, Arakonam on 11.7.2005 and in the course of such inspection, the following violations in the shop are noticed: (i) there is no display of the Board in the shop specifying the holidays (ii) visitors book was not produced by the shop owner and (iii) 250 grams pocket of Broken dhal meant for sale does not contain the address of the packers, date of package, weight and rate of the good. After inspection, show cause notice was issued to the shop owner on 11.7.2005 and the shop owner duly replied the notice denying the allegations. However, not satisfied with the same, the complaints are lodged by the same officer who inspected the shop premises and the same are taken on file and the outcome of which are the orders impugned herein.
3. The trial court has, on the basis of the available materials, found the accused guilty of violation of mandatory requirements of T.N. Shops and Establishments Act and Rules and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, convicted him and imposed fine for the offences as mentioned above. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal revisions are filed by the accused before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in both the criminal revisions, questioned the correctness of the judgment of conviction mainly on two grounds: (i) Assistant Inspector of Labour, Arakonam who inspected the shop premises and who is the complainant, is not authorised to investigate and file final report based on which the cases are taken on file (ii) The petitioners shop having been manned by the petitioner-owner without any third party-employee, does not come within the purview of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act for the violation of mandatory provisions of which the petitioner is charged and (iii) there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.
5. The learned Government Advocate representing the state has defended the correctness of the judgment of the trial court by contending that there is no legal impediment for the complainant to hold the investigation and file final report and in the absence of any prejudice to the petitioner, the same shall not render the prosecution version to be doubtful and vulnerable.
6. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate in support of their respective contentions cited the legal authorities and the petitioner side cited the authorities reported in (i) 1995 Crl.LJ 3988 (1) SC in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (ii) 2005 Crl.LJ. 377 Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. Sheshadri Shetty and others and the respondent side relied upon (i) 2004 Crl.LJ 1819 in State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti corruption, Tiruchirappali v. V.Jayapaul and (ii) 2009 11 SCC 690 in Bhaskar Ramappa Madar and others v. State of Karnataka respectively.
7. I heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. It is true that the Honble Apex court in the first judgment cited on the side of the petitioner observed that when the complainant and the investigating officer are one and the same person, the same vitiates the entire pros
