State by Public Prosecutor vs Joseph J. Palakunnal

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—This is a common judgment which covers the appeals against C. A. Nos. 33 and 34 of 1969. on the file of the Court

of the District Magistrate (J), Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. These are appeals filed by the State against the order of the District Magistrate acquitting

the Respondent of the contravention of Rules 82 (1)(b), 1(c) and 1(d) of the Madras Plantation Labour Rules read with S. 36 of the Plantation

Labour Act (XLIX of 1951).

P. W. 1 is the Inspector of Plantations. He is the complainant on behalf of the State. He inspected the estate owned by the Respondent on 5th,

December 1968 at 9-50 a.m. The Respondent was not present. Paul Thomas, the then Superintendent of the estate, was present. P.W. 1. stated

in his evidence that he demanded the registers and records that should be maintained as per the Plantation Labour Act. The Superintendent

produced the inspection book. He did not produce a good number of other registers maintained under the Act. In cross-examination, P. W. 1

stated that he questioned the Superintendent and that he replied that the records were not available. Subsequently, P. W. 1 sent his inspection

order marked Ex. P-2 and also sent a notice to the accused-Respondent to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for the contravention of

the various rules under the Act. The said show-cause notice is marked as Ex. P-3. In his reply, the Respondent stated that most of the records and

registers maintained at the estate were at Nagercoil office for routine check and verification. It was certainly open to P.W. 1 to demand the

production of the said registers from the Nagercoil office for his scrutiny and inspection, which, in this case, he did not choose to do. Straightaway

he obtained sanction and prosecuted the Respondent.

The trial Magistrate convicted the Respondent of the violation of various rules. But in the appeal before the District Magistrate (J), filed by the

Respondent, he was acquitted of the contravention of Rules 48 (3) and 82 (1)(a) of the Plantation Labour Rules read with Section 36 of the

Plantation Labour Act. In C.A. No. 34 of 1969, he was also acquitted of the violation of Rules 82 (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(d) of the Plantation

Labour Rules read with S. 36 of the Plantation Labour Act.

The State filed these appeals against the acquittal of the Respondent.

The contraventions of these rules fall within the narrow ambit of ''refusal'' to produce on the demand of Inspector, P. W. 1, the registers and

other documents kept in compliance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the proper punishment Section that would be attracted is S. 33(2),

and not S. 36 of Act LXIX of 1951. When one scrutinizes the terms of Sub-section (2) of S. 33, the prosecution has got to discharge the burden

of proving the ingredient ""wilfully"" within the meaning of that Sub-section. I have already extracted the relevant material evidence on this aspect of

the matter. The evidence of P.W.1, no doubt, shows that he demanded production of the relevant records. He also stated that the Superintendent

of the estate replied that the records were not available. There is the further document Ex. P-5 wherein the Respondent has stated that these

registers were available in the Nagercoil office. It is obviously clear that the Inspector did not ask for production of the said registers and

documents from the Nagercoil office. Soon after, the Respondent was prosecuted for contravention of the rules already noticed.

The entire recorded evidence, even if accepted, as I do wholly, does not make out the ingredient ""wilfully"" within the meaning of S. 33(2).

Therefore, in my view, the order of acquittal of the Respondent is justified and the correctness of the said order cannot be impugned.

The two appeals filed by the State against the Respondent are dismissed.