Ghulam Husain and Another Vs Rex

Allahabad High Court 2 Dec 1949 Criminal Ref. No. 1092 of 1949 (1949) 12 AHC CK 0011
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Ref. No. 1092 of 1949

Hon'ble Bench

Desai, J

Advocates

Jai Kishen Lal, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred
  • Uttar Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1947 - Section 10, 27

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Desai, J.@mdashThe applicants were convicted by a Magistrate u/s 27, D. P. Shopa and Com-mercial Establishments Act, XXII [22] of 1947, for not closing their shop on three Thursdays in com-pliance with an order issued by the District Magistrate. u/s 10 of the Act, every employer is bound to close his shop on one day of the week, known as the "close day", the choice of the close day is of the employer though subject to the approval of such authority as may be appointed in this behalf, and the employer is required to specify the close day in a notice permanently exhibited in the shop. Under the rules, the District Magistrate is the authority appointed to approve of close days. The case against the applicants is that the District Magistrate issued an order fixing Thursday as the close day and that the applicants failed to close their shop on three Thursdays. The reply of the applicants is that they were observing Friday as the close day and had closed their shop on Fridays. The Magistrate convicted the applicants and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 25 each. This reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the District Magistrate had no authority to fix the close day,

2. There is much force in the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge. The District Magistrate was given power only to approve of the close day selected by an employer. The choice of a close day is of the employer under the Act. It is admitted by the Shop Inspector that the applicants communicated to the District Magistrate their selection of Friday as the close day. All that the District Magistrate could do was to withhold his approval, if he did not wish to have Friday as the close day. He could not himself fix the close day. If he refused to approve of Friday as the close day, the applicants would have been obliged to select another close day and again seek his approval. The arbitrary order of the District Magistrate fixing the close day, without regard to the provisions of Section 10 (2) leaving the choice of a close day to the employer, was ultra vires and by its breach the applicants committed no offence. The applicants were bound to close their shop once a week on a day selected by them. There is no evidence that they did not close the shop on Fridays.

3. The reference is accepted and the applicants'' conviction and sentences are set aside. The fine, if realised, shall be refunded.

From The Blog
India Ends ₹8,500 Crore Vodafone Tax Dispute: Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Transfer Pricing Case
Nov
06
2025

Court News

India Ends ₹8,500 Crore Vodafone Tax Dispute: Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Transfer Pricing Case
Read More
Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Read More