JUDGMENT 1. - This is a State appeal against the order of acquittal of Aminkhan passed by the learned City Magistrate, Jodhpur on 29th of December 1965, acquitting him of the charge under Section 18 read with Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 2. Mr. M. S. Ahluwalia, who was appointed as an Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the State of Rajasthan, inspected the stone quarry of the respondent at Brahmpuri on 27th June 1964 and he found on inspection that the respondent did not display any notice in form IX-A as prescribed by rule 22 of the Rules made under the Minimum Wages Act. He also found that the respondent did not maintain the register of wages at the workspot under rule 26 (1) and the register of over-time under rule 25 (2). A report of this inspection note was prepared by the Labour Inspector on the spot and a copy thereof was sent to the respondent for his explanation. He also forwarded a copy of his inspection note to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur. It is alleged that the respondent sent a reply to the show cause notice issued to him by the Inspector. But according to the Inspector that reply was not found to be correct and therefore a complaint was lodged by the said Inspector in the Court of the City Magistrate against the respondent to prosecute him for the non-compliance of the provisions of the Rules and punish him under Section 18 read with Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act. 3. The learned Magistrate examined the accused respondent wherein the accused admitted that he was not aware of any form as prescribed in form IX-A under rule 22. He also admitted that he did not maintain any register of wages at the workspot and so also the register of over-time was not maintained by him. 4. The prosecution produced two witnesses in support of its case. P. W. 1 is Shri M. M. Ahluwalia and P. W. 2 Mangilal who had accompanied P. W. 1 to the quarry of the respondent at the time when it was inspected by him. 4. The prosecution produced two witnesses in support of its case. P. W. 1 is Shri M. M. Ahluwalia and P. W. 2 Mangilal who had accompanied P. W. 1 to the quarry of the respondent at the time when it was inspected by him. After recording the prosecution evidence, the respondent was again examined under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code by the trial Court and in that statement he admitted that on 27th June 1964 when his quarry was inspected there was no notice displayed in form IX-A as prescribed by rule 22. For register of wages he stated that the register was no doubt maintained but it was at his house, and for maintaining the register for over-time his plea was that he was not required to make any over-time payment as he had sub-leased his quarry and he was not responsible to make any payment to the labour.In support of his plea he produced one Meeru (D. W. 1) probably to show that he had given a contract for working the quarry and that he was not responsible for making any payment to the labour. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that the respondent was not present at his quarry at the time when it was inspected by the complainant and that the complainant did not make a demand for showing the register from any person or authority and therefore there does not arise any question of the non-compliance of the provisions of the Rules. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that if the respondent was not found present at the quarry the complainant ought to have made a demand for showing the register which he did not do. In these circumstances the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the respondent had not committed any breach of the Rules. It is against this judgment that the State has come in appeal before this Court. 5. Learned Deputy Government Advocate did not press his appeal regarding the non-display of notice in Form IX-A under R. 22. In these circumstances the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the respondent had not committed any breach of the Rules. It is against this judgment that the State has come in appeal before this Court. 5. Learned Deputy Government Advocate did not press his appeal regarding the non-display of notice in Form IX-A under R. 22. He however, submitted for other charges that the accused himself had admitted in his statement that the register which he had to maintain about the wages under R. 26 (1) of the Rules was kept by him at his house, and also for the non-maintenance of the register for over-time the plea of accused was that he was not required to make any payment to any labour for working over-time. This plea itself, according to learned Government Advocate, proves the violation of the Rules. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent urged that the non-compliance of the Rules in the circumstances of the case is of a technical nature and therefore a lenient view should be taken by the Court in disposing of this appeal. 7. Rule 26 of the Rules requires that a register for wages shall be maintained by every employer at the workspot and shall be kept in such form as may be notified by the Central Government. The plea of the accused is that the register was maintained by him but it was kept not at the workspot but at his house. Under this rule it is not only necessary that the register must be kept by the employer but he should keep it at the workspot. This requirement, in my opinion, is mandatory because the keeping of a register is meant for giving facility to the employees and also to those officers of the department who require to inspect the site to find out whether provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are duly complied with or not. No doubt it is an omission of a very technical nature but nonetheless it is a non-compliance for which the accused respondent should have been guilty by the trial Court. 8. Rule 25 (2) requires that an employer shall maintain a register of over-time in Form IV in which entries under the columns specified therein shall be made as and when over-time is worked in any establishment. 8. Rule 25 (2) requires that an employer shall maintain a register of over-time in Form IV in which entries under the columns specified therein shall be made as and when over-time is worked in any establishment. This rule further provides that the register shall be kept at the workspot and maintained uptodate, and if no overtime is worked in any wage period, a ‘nil’ entry shall be made across the body of the register at the end of the wage period indicating also in precise terms the wage period to which the ‘nil’ entry relates. The perusal of this sub-r. (2) makes it abundantly clear that it is necessary for an employer to maintain an overtime register whether he pays overtime or not and in case he is not required to make any overtime payment he will make a ‘nil’ entry in the register at the end of the wage period but he shall have to indicate precisely the wage period to which the ‘nil’ entry relates. In view of the admission of the accused in his statement under Section 364 of Criminal P. C., the accused cannot be exonerated of the charge levelled against him. 9. After the prosecution evidence was recorded by the trial Court the accused was again re-examined under Section 342, Criminal P. C., and in that statement the accused changed his stand on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent. In my opinion, the subsequent statement made by the accused cannot be accepted by the Court in view of the fact that he had already admitted the non-compliance of R. 25 (2) and R. 26 (1) of the Rules. 10. For the reasons mentioned above the accused respondent is found guilty for the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of R. 26 (1) and R. 25 (2) of the Rules. 11. The order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is therefore set aside. Tho accused respondent is convicted under Section 18 read with Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act. The accused is fined Rs. 5/- for the non-compliance of the provisions of the aforementioned rules. He shall pay the fine within a week, otherwise he shall be required to undergo five days simple imprisonment. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed.Appeal allowed. *******