JUDGMENT-The State has appealed against an acquittal of the respondents recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Umrer, under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act. The learned Magistrate has after interpreting the phrase "scheduled employment" held that the complaint was not competent. 2. The complaint was filed by one Mr. Umre examined as C. W. 1, who appears to be the Labour Officer as well as Inspector, Minimum Wages Act. It was stated that on February 12, 1970, the accused was found running his shop in breach of the rules 22, 27 (I), 27 (2) and 28 of the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules framed under the Minimum Wages Act. The evidence in support of this plea was of Janardhan Umre (P. W. I) who had visited the shop of the accused on 12-2-1970. He did not find any employee present but he merely stated that it was the accused who was saying that one employee was engaged by him. He did not find Muster-Roll cum-wage register, wage slip nor the abstract of the Act and the Rules. Similarly he did not find inspection book and he therefore wrote his remarks on a blank paper and obtained accuseds signature. According to this witness, accused told him that he paid Rs. 25 only as a salary to his servant. The witness told him that the salary under the minimum wage prescribed was Rs. 55. After obtaining sanction the prosecution Was launched. 3. At the trial P. W. 2 Dhanvijay, employee of the Municipal Council, Umrer, produced Exh. 13, which is an application by the accused for registration of the shop. In that, in column No.9, it is stated that one Moresh Sadavarti aged 15, is engaged in confidential capacity. This is all the evidence. This evidence clearly is not sufficient to establish that in the shop admittedly owned and run by the accused there was in fact "employment". P. W. 1 had no personal knowledge. He merely states in Court what he gathered from the accused. P. W. 2 Dhanvijay also has no personal knowledge. He merely produced an application. That is not enough to establish that the accused was the employer and that there was any breach of the main rules for which the prosecution was sanctioned and launched. 4. He merely states in Court what he gathered from the accused. P. W. 2 Dhanvijay also has no personal knowledge. He merely produced an application. That is not enough to establish that the accused was the employer and that there was any breach of the main rules for which the prosecution was sanctioned and launched. 4. The main rules for which the prosecution appears to have been launched has reference to rule 27 which obliges an employer to maintain certain muster-roll-cum-wage register. Sub-rule (2) obliges him similarly with respect to attendance card-cum· Wage slip. Rule 28 also speaks of an employer maintaining an inspection book. Rule 22 similarly casts an obligation for the purpose of exhibiting the minimum wage fixed under the Act. Technically, that rule may operate against a person like the accused nut as I have noticed the main ingredients of the charge related to other counts of the rule. There was little evidence on that point to indicate that the accused was in a position of the "employer" and has committed breach of those rules. That would have been enough to acquitted the accused. 5. However, that is not the ground on which the acquittal Was recorded, but the learned Magistrate has considered and construed an entry being Entry No. 17 to mean that the shop and the commercial establishment in that entry is qualified by the clause "under any of the other entries in this schedule". That construction is a clear confusion. The Entry No. 17, before its amendment, was in the following terms :_ "Employment in any shop or commercial establishment other than that covered under any of the other entries in this schedule." By an amendment, (Maharashtra Act No.3 of 1963, section 11) a change was introduced by substituting the words, "not being an employment in any bank or an employment which is included" in place of the words "other than that covered". Rest of the clause was kept in tact. However, in the book that appears to have been published, the amended portion has been put in a bracket. That bracket is the source of confusion. While reading that entry, the learned Magistrate reproduced the whole entry No. 17 along with the bracket for it was so printed. 6. The look to the Amendment Act shows that bracket is not the part of the amendment. That bracket is the source of confusion. While reading that entry, the learned Magistrate reproduced the whole entry No. 17 along with the bracket for it was so printed. 6. The look to the Amendment Act shows that bracket is not the part of the amendment. The Minimum Wages Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1962 (i. e. Act No.3 of 1962) was published on January 14, 1963, in the Gazette. Section 11 merely stated that in the schedule to the principal Act in Part I, in Entry 17, for the words "other than that covered", the words "not being an employment in any bank or an employment which is included" shall be substituted. No bracket was provided and it appears that merely to indicate an amendment in any print the bracket was given. Removing the bracket the entry would read as under :_ "Employment in any shop or commercial establishment not being act employment in any bank or an employment which is included under any of the other entries in this Schedule." The meaning of this entry is plainly clear. It makes employment in any shop or commercial establishment a scheduled employment with reference to sections 2 (g) and 27 of the Minimum Wages Act. It excepts from it an employment in any bank and an employment which is included under any of the other entries in this Schedule. In other words, the phrase "under any of the other entries in this Schedule" is not a qualifying phrase of the term "shop or commercial establishment". So read, an employment which is covered by "any of the other entries in this Schedule" will be outside the entry itself. All shops and commercial establishments, excepting a bank and employments in the activities which are taken in by the other items of the Schedule are therefore within entry No. 17. The explanation to this entry points out that the expression "shop and commercial establishment" will have the meaning assigned to those terms by the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. That takes in subsection (27) of sec1ion 2 which defines "shop" and sub-section (4) of section 2 which defines "commercial Establishment". Wherever, therefore, there are any premises which answer the description of "shop" or an establishment which answers the "commercial establishment", then the entry is answered, except the banking employment or an employment in the activities continued in the other items of the Schedule. Wherever, therefore, there are any premises which answer the description of "shop" or an establishment which answers the "commercial establishment", then the entry is answered, except the banking employment or an employment in the activities continued in the other items of the Schedule. The shop run by the accused is surely a shop and is not except from that entry. There is a notification properly issued with respect to the shops under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. That notification is No. M· W A-4264-lab·III dated 28th April 1966 issued by the Industries and Labour Department, Sachivalaya, Bombay. This notification clearly therefore applies to the premises where goods are sold either by retail or wholesale or any service is rendered to customers. It cannot be disputed that the accused was running a hardware shop. It was not necessary ,for the prosecution to further show that such a shop was the shop concernedwi1h any items mentioned in the entries of the Schedule. That being the position, the judgment of the learned Magistrate is clearly in error and cannot be sustained. 7. However, as indicated above, there is little material to conclude that the accused was an employer running shop or that he could be deemed to have committed an offence in breach of certain rules. The matter was not established beyond reasonable doubt and benefit must go the accused. Though for different reasons, the acquittal is maintained. The present appeal would stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed.