MP 1 APPLN1043_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1043 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Ramesh Pandurang Lavate ... Respondent Mr. Y. S. Shinde, APP for the Applicant State. Mr. Jitendra M. Mulik, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 11TH OCTOBER 2011 P. C. : The State seeks to prefer appeal against acquittal of the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 7(1)(4), 18(1), 62 r/w. Section 52 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a complaint was filed by the Shop Inspector, Karad against the accused-respondent alleging that the accused had not submitted his application for the registration of shop in the prescribed form 'A' within the prescribed period, that he had not displayed the Board of “Sunday- Weekly Holiday” and he had not maintained the remark-book in his shop and thereby he had contravened the provisions of Sections 7(1)(4), 18(1) and 62 of the said Act. After the trial, the learned J.M.F.C., Karad acquitted the accused. 3. The alleged offences are punishable under Section 52 of the said Act with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees and which may extend to five thousand rupees. Therefore, the offences punishable under the said Act are non-cognizable and bailable. 4. Time and again, it has been stated that the Government is one of the biggest litigants before the Courts and the Courts are overburdened with pendency and in the interests of administration of justice, the State should not enter into MP 2 APPLN1043_11 unnecessary litigations. It is surprising rather shocking that the State should direct the Public Prosecutor to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal in a bailable and non-cognizable offence under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. On perusal of the facts and evidence, it appears that the Shop Inspector had not given any notice to the accused to produce the remark-book or to explain why rules were not complied. No independent witness was called nor any Panchnama was drawn. Therefore, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant leave to prefer appeal. 5. In view of the above, leave to prefer appeal against acquittal is refused and the application stands rejected. (J. H. BHATIA, J)