Oza J.-1. This is an appeal against the acquittal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal dated 28th January 1978 passed in favour of the respondent from the offences under rules 25, 13, and 8-A of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty Rules passed by the Muncipal Magistrate Indore.

2. A prosecution was launched against the respondent along with three others alleging that one of the accused persons who was made accused No. 1 was the Manager of a Cinema house known as Prakash Talkies Indore where as the other accused persons including the present respondent were the partners thereof. It was alleged that there has been non-compliance with the provisions contained in rules 8 and 13 of the Entertainment Rules consequently it is an offence punishable under rule 25.

3. It is not disputed that the case was summons case and tried summarily. The plea of the accused persons including the present respondent was recorded. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 admitted that offence and pleaded guilty but the present respondent stated that although he is a partner but he is a sleeping partner not in any manner connected with the ma management of the Cinema house. Learned Magistrate after considering the allegations made in the complaint and the plea of the respondent acquitted the respondent but convicted the other three accused persons on their plea of guilty. It is against this that the State has come up in appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant State contended that the learned Court proceeded to dispose of the case on the plea of guilty whereas in fact the present respondent did not plead guilty. He therefore contended that the Court below should have proceeded with the recording of evidence and then dispose of the case. It was also contended that the respondent being a partner is admitted and therefore if this is considered without any evidence being a partner he falls within the ambit of the definition of the term "Proprietor" and therefore is liable to be convicted.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended Proprietor has been defined in sub-clause (f) of section 2 and this definition clearly indicates that the propritor is one who manages the affairs of the Cinema house. He therefore contended that the only allegation in the complaint was that he is a partner and in his plea he pleaded that although he is a partner but not looking after the management of the Cinema house. This plea is not controvered either by any allegation by the complainant or by prosecution nor they chose to lead any evidence as according to the learned counsel it being summons case tried summarily it was the duty of the prosecution to keep the witnesses present if they wanted to examine and pray the Court that this respondent has not pleaded guilty therefore they want to adduce evidence. In these circumstances the learned Judge had no course open but to acquit the respondent as his plea that he had nothing to do with the management of the Cinema house was not controverted. Learned counsel therefore contended that the appeal has no substance.

6. Rules 25 which is a penal provision of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty Rules provides:

"Whoever contravenes the provisions of, or commits a breach of any these rules shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs.500/-."

Contravention alleged is of rules 8 (a), 8-A and l3. All these rules provide that the proprietor of an entertainment has to do acts as alleged in these rules i.e. rule 8-A and rule 13. According to the prosecution what have been contravened was contemplated in rule 8-A and rule 13 has not been folio wed and thereby a breach of these rules have been committed. As rule 8-A and rule 13 require the proprietor to see the compliance of these rules the Manager and the partners were prosecuted for this offence. The Manager who was accused No. 1 admittedly pleaded guilty as it was he who was supposed to comply with the provisions of these rules. The other two partners who were associated w