JUDGMENT B. N. Jha, J. This is an appeal by the State of Bihar against the judgment and order dated the 17th December, 1965, by the Munsif Magistrate, First class, Monghyr in complaint case no. 1334 of 1963 (T. R Case no.• 329 of 1965) acquitting the respondents under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the proprietors of the Cinema Vijoy Talkies, Monghyr and respondent 3 is the manager of the said Cinema. On August, 2, 1963 at about 7-15 P. M. Arbind Kumar Mishra (P.W.1) Labour Officer and Inspecting Officer under the Shops and Establishment Act (hereafter called the Act) Monghyr along with Ramchandra Prasad (P. W. 2), Superintendent of Labour, Monghyr and M. R. Roy (P.W. 3) stenographer to the Superintendent of Labour, Monghyr, inspected the said Cinema and found it unregistered in contravention of Section 6 read with Rule 3 made under the Act. A letter namely Memo no. 4444 Monghyr dated the 8th August, 1963 (Ext. 1) was sent by the inspecting officer (P. W. 1) to the proprietors and manager informing them that on inspection made by him a number of irregularities under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 were noticed by him. One of such irregularities was that the establishment was not registered under the Act. It is not necessary for me now to mention the other irregularities mentioned in the letter. In pursuance of this notice the manager filed an application addressed to the Labour Superintendent, Monghyr by which the manager of Vijoy Talkies prayed for time for the compliance with the direction as mentioned in the aforesaid Memo no. 4444 dated the 8th August, 1963, but in spite of that the establishment did not get himself registered or any application was filed for registration and hence a complaint was filed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Monghyr. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case for committing the offence under Section 32 and Section 6 read with Rule 3 of the Act and summons was issued in pursuance thereof. On April 8, 1964, the ,case was ultimately transferred to the file of the Munsif Magistrate. 3. At the trial the respondents denied to have committed any offence. On April 8, 1964, the ,case was ultimately transferred to the file of the Munsif Magistrate. 3. At the trial the respondents denied to have committed any offence. It was also contended by them that there was no inspection of the Cinema by the Inspecting Officer and the application for registration was duly made, and ultimately the establishment was registered. 4. The prosecution examined three witnesses and also proved some documents in the case in support of the case. The Magistrate has observed that on a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record it appears that it is practically clear that on the 2nd August, 1963, Vijoy Talkies were unregistered, but this case has been filed chiefly for violation of the directions made by P.W.1 to the accused persons. On examination of the evidence on record he came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove service of notice to the accused directing them to remove the irregularities and as such had failed to prove disobedience on their part and that there were positive indications that the accused manager was very particular to comply with the directions on the basis of his contacts. In view of the findings he found the respondents not guilty for the offences for which they were tried and acquitted them. Hence the State of Bihar has filed this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned Munsif Magistrate is wrong in holding that the prosecution is mainly for violation of the directions as they failed to comply with them. He also challenged the finding that no notice by P. W. 1 to comply with the directions was served on the respondents. 6. The learned Magistrate in Paragraph 4 of his judgment stated that the chief point for consideration was whether the establishment M/S Vijoy Talkies was unregistered in violation of the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act, 1953, or not and secondly whether they violated any directions. The learned Munsif Magistrate observed as follows: "From a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record it appears practically clear that on 2.8.1963 the establishment M/S Vijoy Talkies was unregistered one". The learned Munsif Magistrate observed as follows: "From a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record it appears practically clear that on 2.8.1963 the establishment M/S Vijoy Talkies was unregistered one". Therefore, the learned Munsif Magistrate was conscious of the fact that the prosecution was in respect of two offences, (i) for contravention of the provisions of the Act, that is, the establishment had not got itself registered and (ii) that for not complying with the direction given by the Inspecting Officer for removing the irregularities noticed by him as mentioned in his letter, Ext. 1. 7. The prosecution examined three witnesses in support of the case. The Labour and Inspecting Officer (P. W. 1) stated in his evidence in court that on August 2, 1963, he along with R. C. Prasad and M. R. Roy went and inspected the establishment, Vijoy Talkies at about 7-15 P. M. He found that the establishment, was not registered, under Section 6 read with Rule 3 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act and Rules 1955. A notice to show cause was issued to the Manager and Proprietor, Vijoy Talkies per Ext. 1. The Manager appeared before the Superintendent aforesaid and prayed for time to comply with the irregularities. Time till 28.6.1 963 was allowed. On 28.6.1963 the Manager did not turn up. Hirday Narain Singh was shown as Manager and he personally enquired from the cinema manager and he told that Vijoy Kumar, respondent no.1 and Yadunandan Jha, respondent 2, were the proprietors of M/S Vijoy Talkies. He also proved the notification by which he was appointed Inspecting Officer under the Shops and Establishments Act. In cross-examination he admitted that under covering letter an application for registration dated December 2, 1963 was made. The application was dated December 3, 1963. On inquiry he learnt that the application was received in the office on December, 7, 1963. No application was made prior to it for registration. The suggestion was given to him that the respondents, proprietors and manager on behalf of the establishment had filed the application and deposited the money much earlier to the case, but it was denied. Another suggestion was given to him that he never sent a notice or that it was never received by the parties which. he also denied. The suggestion was given to him that the respondents, proprietors and manager on behalf of the establishment had filed the application and deposited the money much earlier to the case, but it was denied. Another suggestion was given to him that he never sent a notice or that it was never received by the parties which. he also denied. There is nothing in his evidence to indicate that the statements made by him are incorrect in any way. 8. R. C. Prasad (P.W. 2), Labour Superintendent, stated that on the 2nd August, 1963, at about 7-15 P. M. along with P.W.1 visited the establishment, Messrs Vijoy Talkies, Monghyr. The establishment was unregistered in c1ear violation of Section 6 read with Rule 3. The application Ext. 8 was submitted to him for time and he made endorsement thereon Ext. 9. He also proved that the application for registration was received in office on December 7, 1963. He has fully corroborated the testimony of P. W. 1. P. W. 3 stated that he along with the Superintendent of Labour and Labour Officer went to the premises of Vijoy Talkies at 7-15 P. M. The accused was asked by the Labour Officer if the Talkies were registered or not. The Manager replied in the negative. There after they came back. The Labour Officer made certain notes. He also corroborated the testimony given by P.W.1 and P.W. 2 that they inspected the Talkies on the 2nd August 1963 and found that it had not been registered under the Shops and Establishments Act. The only suggestion to P.W. 3 was that they wanted to see cinema free which they refused and hence the false case was filed. He denied the suggestion. Ext. 1 is the office copy of the Memo no. 4444 dated the 8th August, 1963 addressed to the Proprietor and Manager, Vijoy Talkies. From the evidence discussed above it is clear that P. W. 1 stated that this letter was sent to the establishment. The application (Ext. 8) corroborates the facts that Ext. 1 was sent to the respondents and was received by the Manager. It states that in compliance with their letter no. 4444 dated the 8th August, 1963, they liked to inform them that the undersigned was out of station and as such they could not arrange to deposit the necessary registration fee. They also prayed for one week's time. 1 was sent to the respondents and was received by the Manager. It states that in compliance with their letter no. 4444 dated the 8th August, 1963, they liked to inform them that the undersigned was out of station and as such they could not arrange to deposit the necessary registration fee. They also prayed for one week's time. P.W. 2 stated that such application was filed and he granted time and he made endorsement to the effect that as requested by the Manager, August 28 was fixed for the said purpose. These two letters were produced by the prosecution from the office. The oral evidence adduced in the case clearly shows that the respondents took time for complying with the directions within one week, but they could not do so. The forwarding letter along with the application form filed by the respondents (Ext. 6) had been produced in this case. Both P.W.1 and 2 stated that the application was filed on December, 1963. It is true that the direct proof of service of Ext. 1 on the respondents is not forthcoming but the application filed by the Manager in pursuance of Ext. 1 clearly establishes that notice (Ext. 1) was served on them. The letter number and the date of Ext. 1 find mention in the application filed on their behalf before the Labour Superintendent. 9. The Sub-divisional Magistrate had taken cognizance of (i) offence under Section 32 of the Act for not complying with the directions of the authorities and (ii) for the contravention of the provision of Section 6 read with Rule 3 of the Act. In the examination of the respondents, the following question was put to each of them which they denied, "It has been stated that Labour Officer Sri Arbind Kumar Mishra alona with o other officers inspected your Cinema Vijoy Talkies at Ghoshi Tola, Monghyr at about 7.15 o'clock on 2. 8. 1963 and they found it unregistered." 10. The observations made by the Munsif Magistrate clearly show that on August 2, 1963, the establishment was not registered and the aforesaid evidence also shows that till the complaint against the respondents was filed on December 4, the establishment had not filed any application for registration till then. 8. 1963 and they found it unregistered." 10. The observations made by the Munsif Magistrate clearly show that on August 2, 1963, the establishment was not registered and the aforesaid evidence also shows that till the complaint against the respondents was filed on December 4, the establishment had not filed any application for registration till then. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the respondents have contravened the provision of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953, and the rules made thereunder. Hence in my opinion, the learned Magistrate was not justified in holding that the respondents are not guilty for any of the offence. 11. I believe the statements of the P. Ws. that they visited Vijoy Talkies, Monghyr, on August 2, 1963 and found the establishment unregistered under the Act. There is no dispute that Sri Arbind Kumar Mishra was the Inspecting Officer under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act at Monghyr at the relevant time. The application for registration was made after the complaint was filed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate by the Inspecting Officer, though the respondents were asked by notice (Ext. 1) which was duly received by them to remove the irregularities mentioned in it by August 13, 1963. The respondent took a false plea that the P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 never visited the establishment on August 2, 1963, and that they did not find the establishment unregistered. I also accept the prosecution story that the application (Ext. 8) was filed on behalf of the respondents for time on the 13th August, 1963, and time was allowed to remove the irregularities by August 26, 1963. But they did not comply with the directions issued to them by the Inspecting Officer nor any attempt was made to comply with the directions within the time allowed to them. It is true that subsequently the establishment had been registered but nonetheless the respondents could not be exonerated from the charge for not complying with the directions given to them. 12. L.M. Sharma for the respondents contended that the Inspecting Officer (P. W. 1) visited the establishment on August 2, 1963. There is no evidence on the record to show that the establishment was one month old at the time. 12. L.M. Sharma for the respondents contended that the Inspecting Officer (P. W. 1) visited the establishment on August 2, 1963. There is no evidence on the record to show that the establishment was one month old at the time. Rule 3 under the Act enjoins on the employer to make an application for registration of the establishment within thirty days of the application of the rules to the establishment and as such the employer could not be said to have contravened the provisions of this rule. It is true that there is no evidence on the record to show that the establishment was running its business since one month before the Inspecting Officer visited it, but assuming that the establishment came into existence on the day no application for registration was made till September 1, 1963, the respondents must be held to have contravened the provisions of Section 6 read with rule 3 of the Act. It was further contended by Mr. Sharma that the prosecution was for the offence alleged to have been committed on August, 2, 1963 and not thereafter. But reading the complaint as a whole the prosecution case was that the Inspecting Officer found the establishment unregistered on August 2, 1963 and till December 4, 1963 when the complaint was filed by the Inspecting Officer no application for registration had been filed. Therefore, there is no force in the contention raised by Mr. Sharma on this score. Mr. Sharma further contended that there is evidence on the record that on August 2, 1963 respondents 1 and 2 were proprietors of the establishment and as such they could not be held guilty for contravening the provisions of the Act. No such case was however made out at the trial. Besides this p.w. 2 stated that on inquiry he came to know that Vijoy Kumar Singh and Shri Jadunandan Jha were the proprietors and also one Girish Pd. Verma Hirday Narain Singh was the Manager. The witness was not cross-examined on this point. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that respondents 1 and 2 were the proprietors of the establishment and Hirday Narain Singh was the manager of the establishment from August 2, 1963, onwards. The application on behalf of the establishment for the registration also shows this. 13. Mr. The witness was not cross-examined on this point. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that respondents 1 and 2 were the proprietors of the establishment and Hirday Narain Singh was the manager of the establishment from August 2, 1963, onwards. The application on behalf of the establishment for the registration also shows this. 13. Mr. Sharma contended that the respondents could not be held liable for non-compliance with any lawful direction by the Inspecting Officer and as such they could not be held guilty under Section 32 of the Act. He drew my attention to Section 30 of the Act which confers powers and jurisdiction on the Inspecting Officer. This Section does not specifically authorise the Inspecting Officer to give directions to the establishment to do certain thing. It is difficult for me to accept this contention. Section 30 (1) (d) authorises the Inspecting Officer to exercise such other powers as may be prescribed for carrying out the purpose of this Act. Learned counsel submitted that this must be referable to other clauses of Subsection 1 of Section 30 of the Act and the power to be exercised must be in the nature of acts mentioned in those subsections. But the language used in this sub-clause is quite comprehensive to include other acts which are necessary for the purpose of this Act. Rule 26 (d) empowers the Inspecting Officer to point out all such defects or irregularities as he may have observed and to give orders for their remedy or removal and hand over to the employee summary of the defects or irregularities and of his orders. Therefore, in my opinion the Inspecting Officer was authorised to issue direction to the establishment to get itself registered. Learned counsel contended that Rule 7 provides the penalty for non-registration of the establishment and as such the respondents could not be punished under Section 34 of the Act which restricts the application of the provisions of the Section to the offences, the penalty of which is not provided anywhere else. This argument loses sight of the fact that Rule 7 makes provision for the realisation of the amount of fee when the Establishment is to be registered after 30 days. Learned counsel lastly submitted that since the establishment has been registered a lenient view should be taken in this case. This argument loses sight of the fact that Rule 7 makes provision for the realisation of the amount of fee when the Establishment is to be registered after 30 days. Learned counsel lastly submitted that since the establishment has been registered a lenient view should be taken in this case. Thus all the contentions raised by learned counsel fail and must be overruled. 14. For the reasons stated above I allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Munsif Magistrate and hold that the respondents committed an) offence punishable under Section 34 of the Act for contravening the provisions of Section 6 read with rule 3 of the Act, and sentence them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/each" in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. I further hold that the respondents did not comply with directions issued by the Inspecting Officer for getting the establishment registered within the time allowed by him and as such committed an offence punishable under Section 32 of the Act. But since the establishment has been registered I impose on each of them a nominal sentence of fine at Rs. 25/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a week. Appeal Allowed.