Judgment Jamuar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State from an order of a magistrate at Motihari dated 29 April 1954, acquitting the respondent under Sec.245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The respondent Gopal Singh is an owner of a cloth shop in Motihari. Saroj Kant Dutt, P.W. 1, is an inspector appointed under the Weekly Holidays Act (Act XVIII of 1942). At about 8-30 p.m. on the night of 30 August 1963, this inspector went to the shop of the respondent along with his stenographer and an orderly peon with a view to inspecting the shop under the provisions of the Weekly Holidays Act.. The inspector deposed at the trial that he found "the shop was opened." It was a Sunday and according to the inspectors evidence all shops at Motihari are to be kept closed on Sundays under the aforesaid Act. The inspector further deposed that he saw one man named Binda Prasad in that shop working along with the respondent. The inspector then asked the respondent to produce the closure notice which should be under the provisions of the Act permanently exhibited in a prominent place of the shop, but the respondent could not produce any such notice, and the inspector also found no such notice hung up anywhere in the shop. The inspector then asked for the production of certain registers, but the respondent was unable to produce any such register. In the circumstances, the inspector made a report for the prosecution of the respondent and the respondent was prosecuted for contravening the provisions of Sec.3 of the Weekly Holidays Act and for having committed breaches of certain rules framed under Sec.10 of the Act. 3. At the trial in the Court below, there were examined on behalf of the prosecution the Inspector, to whose evidence I have already made a reference, and his stenographer, P.W. 2. There was also examined on behalf of the respondent a defence witness, who is the brother of Binda Prasad, who, as I have already stated, was found according to the inspector working with the respondent at that shop that night. This defence witness was examined to show that Binda Prasad was not an employee of that shop and that the respondent himself is the owner of the shop and manages it himself. This defence witness was examined to show that Binda Prasad was not an employee of that shop and that the respondent himself is the owner of the shop and manages it himself. According to the defence, therefore, there was no employee at the shop of the respondent. 4. It was accordingly argued before the learned magistrate, who held the trial, that the provisions of the Weekly Holidays Act had no application to the shop of the respondent for the reason that those provisions are applicable only to shops which have employees and not to shops in which there is no employee. The learned trial magistrate accepted this argument and, having found that the shop of the respondent had no employee, he held that the provisions of the Weekly Holidays Act did not apply to that shop and that, therefore, the owner of that shop, namely, the respondent, could not be prosecuted for the breaches of the Act or the rules made thereunder which he was alleged to have committed. In coming to this conclusion the trial magistrate placed reliance upon the preamble of the Act which is as follows: "Whereas it is expedient to provide for the grant of weekly holidays to persona employed in shops, restaurants and theatres" and he concluded that this preamble would show that the Act applied only to shops having employees and not to other shops. 5. The learned standing counsel, who had appeared for the State before us, stated that he wished to press the appeal only so far as the respondent is alleged to have committed a breach of Sec.3 of the Weekly Holidays Act and he did not wish to press the alleged breaches of the rules framed under that Act. Even so, it becomes necessary to examine whether the provisions of Section 3 can be made applicable to the respondent who owns a shop which has, on the finding of the learned magistrate, no employee. Now, the term "shop" has been denned in Clause (d) of Sec.2 of the Weekly Holidays Act. It is not an exhaustive definition. It states as follows: Shop includes any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on including the business of a barber or hairdresser, and retail sales by auction, but excluding the sale of programmes, catalogues and other similar sales at theatres. It is not an exhaustive definition. It states as follows: Shop includes any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on including the business of a barber or hairdresser, and retail sales by auction, but excluding the sale of programmes, catalogues and other similar sales at theatres. Sec.3 has two sub-sections and they are in the following terms: (1) Every shop shall remain entirely closed on one day of the week which day shall he specified by the shopkeeper in a notice permanently exhibited in a conspicuous place in the shop. (2) The day so specified shall not be altered by the shopkeeper more often than once in three months. Having regard to the definition of the term "shop," I see no reason to exclude shops which have no employees and which are managed by the owners themselves from the provisions of Sec.3. Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad Singh appearing for the respondent contended that having regard to the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6, as also having regard to the preamble of the Act, and considering the rules framed under Sec.10 of the Act, the correct interpretation should be that the term "shop" in Sec.3 includes only such shops which have employees, and shops which are managed by the owners themselves are excluded from the operation of Sec.3. I am unable to accept this contention. It is true that the preamble of the Act says that the Act was being enacted for providing for the grant of weekly holidays to persons employed in shops, restaurants and theatres, but that does not in my opinion, having regard to the plain meaning of Section 3, restrict the meaning of the word "shop" as referring to only shops which have employees. Mr. Singh referred to certain passages from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes. But the passage at p. 46 of the tenth edition of that book clearly explains that the preamble cannot either restrict or extend the enacting part of a statute when the language and the object and scope of the Act are not open to doubt. The learned author has further pointed out that it is not unusual to find that the enacting part is not exactly co-extensive with the preamble and that in many Acts of Parliament although a particular mischief is recited, the legislative provisions extend beyond it. The learned author has further pointed out that it is not unusual to find that the enacting part is not exactly co-extensive with the preamble and that in many Acts of Parliament although a particular mischief is recited, the legislative provisions extend beyond it. The preamble is often no more than a recital of some of the inconveniences and does not exclude any others for which a remedy is given by the statute. The evil recited is but the motive for legislation; the remedy may both consistently and wisely be extended beyond the cure of that evil, and if on a review of the whole Act a wider intention than that expressed in the preamble appears to be the real one, effect is to be, given to it notwithstanding the less extensive import of the preamble. The provisions of Sec.3 of the Weekly Holidays Act, in my opinion, admit of no doubt or vagueness. It seems to me that the correct interpretation would be that the provisions of Sec.3 are applicable both to shops which have employees as also to shops which have no employees and are managed by the owners themselves. But so far as the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, they are specifically in respect of shops which have employees. In these circumstances there is no conflict between the provisions of Sec.3 on the one hand and the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 on the other. In my judgment, therefore, the Weekly Holidays Act is equally applicable to shops having employees as also to shops having no employees but managed by their owners or proprietors. 6. Now coming to the breach which is alleged to have been committed by the respondent, it appears that when the inspector went to inspect the shop of the respondent, he asked for the production of what he called closure notice, but no such notice was produced before him, nor did he find any such notice hung up in any part of the shop. Sec.3 provides that every shop shall remain entirely closed on one day of the week which day shall be specified by the shopkeeper in a notice permanently exhibited in a conspicuous place in the shop. Reference may also be made to the statement of the respondent recorded by the stenographer of the inspector at the shop. This was exhibited as Ex. Reference may also be made to the statement of the respondent recorded by the stenographer of the inspector at the shop. This was exhibited as Ex. 1, and in this statement the respondent himself made the admission that no such notice was hung up in his shop. This appears to be a clear breach of the provisions of Sec.3. 7. In these circumstances, it must be found that the respondent had committed a breach of the provisions of Sec.3 of the Weekly Holidays Act inasmuch as he had failed to have a notice exhibited in a conspicuous place in the shop regarding the day on which the shop remained closed. The penal section is Section 9 of the Act, and this section provides that in the event of any contravention of the provisions of Sec.3 the proprietor or other person responsible for the management of the establishment in which such contravention takes place shall be punishable with fine which may extend in the case of the first offence, to twenty-five rupees, and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to two hundred and fifty rupees. This, as far as we are informed, is a case of first offence. The maximum amount of fine that can be imposed upon the respondent for the contravention of the provisions of Sec.3, therefore, is Rs. 25. But in the circumstances of this case, I think the ends of justice will be met by imposing a fine of Rs. 5 only. 8. The result is that the appeal is allowed, and the respondent, having been found to have contravened the provisions of Sec.3 of the Weekly Holidays Act, is found guilty thereof and is fined for that contravention as stated above. Imam, J. 9 I agree.