The Public Prosecutor vs Thangiah Nadar

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—I have perused the records and heard the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sundaralingam for the employer,

Thangiah Nadar, a cloth merchant in Madura district. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded that the wage periods were fixed as required by

law. His contention was that the wages were not paid before the expiry of the fifth day after the last day of the wages period as required by

Section 32(1) of the Madras shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and that the respondent''s day book and ledger summoned for by the Court and

produced in Court would have proved this but that the lower Court wrongly refused to look into them, and, therefore the acquittal must be set

aside. Now, a day book and ledger are only secondary evidence. Accounts do not prove themselves, nor are they conclusive. If the prosecution

had examined some employee to show that he was not paid within the stipulated period or even some others to prove it, (if all the employees are in

such mortal terror of Thangiah Nadar that they would not depose against him even regarding this), then the day, book and ledger could have been

relevant supplementary evidence. The prosecution failed to do this. It did not examine even Mahalingam, an employee readily available. So I see

no reason to interfere with the acquittal. An acquittal is a valuable right and should not be lightly set aside even at the instance of the State. The

appeal is accordingly dismissed.