048-NLR-NLR-V-57-SOOKALINGAM-Inspector-of-Labour-Appellant-and-ASANERIS-APPU-Respondent.pdf
1955l’test.nf.: Swan, J.
SOGKALIXGAAL (Tii-spcc-tor of Labour), Appellant and ASAXERiiAPPU, Respondent
S. C. I,'JGO of Woo—JI. V. JJiulnUii, 1,0-St
Shop and Ojjicc Limploycc-s (llcjulution of 1Cmploy mail and Remuneration) .1 cl S o. 10of 10ol—Scoring of customer# —Sections G:l (2), GS.
A customer is served within the meaning of the SJu»l> and Ollieo Employees(Kegulalion of Employment and Remuneration) Act when a man who outersa shop and inquires for the price of an article is told what the price is.
/.I’PEAL from a judgment of the 3[agistrate's Court, Endulla-.
I', if. .1. PuHetntyeyiun, Crown Counsel, for flic complainant appellant.
T. Ji. DL-i-sittiayuke, for the accused respondent.
Citr. adv. vull.
November 1. 15)55. Sw.vx, J.—
This is an appeal with the sanction of the Aitgmcy-Gcncial againstthe order of acquittal made in this case by the Alagistrato of 13adulla.The accused-respondent was charged under tho Shop and OfiiccEmployees (Regulation of Employment and Remuneration) Act No. 19 of1954, with having kept his boutique open after closing hours, tho timefor closing in this instance being G p.m. After trial the learnedMagistrate while accepting tho evidence for the prosecution acquittedthe respondent on tho ground that he had not kept his shop open for thejntrposc of serving customers.
liricfly stated the facts are as follows :—When the appellant, who isa. Labour Inspector, was going on his rounds on the day in question heobserved at about 7.20 p.m. that the respondent’s boutiquo was parfiallvopened. He watched the premises for about- half a minute and sawpeople going inside. One man asked the accused what was the priceof green-gram and the accused replied that it- was SO cents. Ho addedthat- he saw people enter the shop, and from the manner in which tlicventered and remained inside he concluded that they were wailing to beserved. The accused in his evidence said that lie left two or three planksopen to enable his children who had gone out to play to come inside.He specifically denied that he had kept his boutique open for business.Ho denied that he had answered the query of a man regarding the priceof green-gram. This evidence, however, was disbelieved. The learnedMagistrate said that he was satisfied that the prosecution version wastrue and that the accused in denying that a man came and inquiredfor green-grain was speaking a falsehood. However he acquitted theaccused because he was not satisfied that the prosecution had provedthat the shop was kept open for the puiposc of serving customers.
X think the learned Magistrate was clearly wrong. Sub-section 2 ofsection 02 provides that ” where in any prosecution for any offencealleged to have been committed by reason of the contravention of am-closing order made under this Act a 113' person is proved to have enteredor to have been found in any shop at any time w hen such shop was requiredby such order to be closed for the solving of customers, such person shallbe presumed, until flic contrary is proved, to have been a customer ”.'l’hero were thus persons in the shop who, unless the contrary was proved,wore customers.
That the boutique was kept open after closing hours has been proved.So that tho only question one has to decide is whether it- was kept openfor the serving of customers. In the interpretation clause (vide section6S) serving of customers includes t he answering of questions or furnishingof information or explanation relating to the price, description or qualityof any goods whether or not such goods are kept for sale at- such shop ”.Thus a customer was scried within tho meaning of the Act when theman who came in and inquired for the price of green-gram w as told thatit was SO cents.
Acquittal set aside.
I set aside the order of acquittal and convict tho accused. Tho easewill be remitted to the lower court in order that the learned Magistratemay pass sentence.