JUDGMENT Oza J.-1. This is an appeal against the acquittal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal dated 28th January 1978 passed in favour of the respondent from the offences under rules 25, 13, and 8-A of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty Rules passed by the Muncipal Magistrate Indore. 2. A prosecution was launched against the respondent along with three others alleging that one of the accused persons who was made accused No. 1 was the Manager of a Cinema house known as Prakash Talkies Indore where as the other accused persons including the present respondent were the partners thereof. It was alleged that there has been non-compliance with the provisions contained in rules 8 and 13 of the Entertainment Rules consequently it is an offence punishable under rule 25. 3. It is not disputed that the case was summons case and tried summarily. The plea of the accused persons including the present respondent was recorded. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 admitted that offence and pleaded guilty but the present respondent stated that although he is a partner but he is a sleeping partner not in any manner connected with the ma management of the Cinema house. Learned Magistrate after considering the allegations made in the complaint and the plea of the respondent acquitted the respondent but convicted the other three accused persons on their plea of guilty. It is against this that the State has come up in appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant State contended that the learned Court proceeded to dispose of the case on the plea of guilty whereas in fact the present respondent did not plead guilty. He therefore contended that the Court below should have proceeded with the recording of evidence and then dispose of the case. It was also contended that the respondent being a partner is admitted and therefore if this is considered without any evidence being a partner he falls within the ambit of the definition of the term "Proprietor" and therefore is liable to be convicted. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended Proprietor has been defined in sub-clause (f) of section 2 and this definition clearly indicates that the propritor is one who manages the affairs of the Cinema house. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended Proprietor has been defined in sub-clause (f) of section 2 and this definition clearly indicates that the propritor is one who manages the affairs of the Cinema house. He therefore contended that the only allegation in the complaint was that he is a partner and in his plea he pleaded that although he is a partner but not looking after the management of the Cinema house. This plea is not controvered either by any allegation by the complainant or by prosecution nor they chose to lead any evidence as according to the learned counsel it being summons case tried summarily it was the duty of the prosecution to keep the witnesses present if they wanted to examine and pray the Court that this respondent has not pleaded guilty therefore they want to adduce evidence. In these circumstances the learned Judge had no course open but to acquit the respondent as his plea that he had nothing to do with the management of the Cinema house was not controverted. Learned counsel therefore contended that the appeal has no substance. 6. Rules 25 which is a penal provision of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty Rules provides: "Whoever contravenes the provisions of, or commits a breach of any these rules shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs.500/-." Contravention alleged is of rules 8 (a), 8-A and l3. All these rules provide that the proprietor of an entertainment has to do acts as alleged in these rules i.e. rule 8-A and rule 13. According to the prosecution what have been contravened was contemplated in rule 8-A and rule 13 has not been folio wed and thereby a breach of these rules have been committed. As rule 8-A and rule 13 require the proprietor to see the compliance of these rules the Manager and the partners were prosecuted for this offence. The Manager who was accused No. 1 admittedly pleaded guilty as it was he who was supposed to comply with the provisions of these rules. As rule 8-A and rule 13 require the proprietor to see the compliance of these rules the Manager and the partners were prosecuted for this offence. The Manager who was accused No. 1 admittedly pleaded guilty as it was he who was supposed to comply with the provisions of these rules. The other two partners who were associated with the management also pleaded guilty, but the present respondent did not as he contended that although he was a partner but he was not associated with the management of the Cinema house and therefore in substance his plea was that he does not fall within the definition of proprietor as provided in section 2 (f). The Court below accepted this plea. 7. The order-sheet dated 28-1-1974 shows that the accused persons were present, their plea was recorded and order was pronounced. There is nothing in these proceedings to indicate that the witnesses of the prosecution were present or that the prosecution intended to lead any evidence to prove that the present respondent i.e. accused No.4 also was collectively associated with be management and therefore is guilty of the offence. Apart from the order-sheet there is nothing on the record to indicate that the prosecution was not satisfied with the pleas recorded and wanted to lead evidence so far as the present respondent is concerned as neither there is any application submitted by the prosecution nor any oral prayer made and recorded any where on the record. Apparently therefore the prosecution was satisfied with the plea recorded and the Court below therefore as the prosecution was not interested in leading any further evidence and as no witnesses were kept present had no choise but to proceed with the case on the basis of the plea recorded. 8. Section 2 (f) provides: " Proprietor in relation to any entertainment includes any person responsible for or for the time being in charge of the management thereof. This definition is inclusive and speaks of a person responsible for the time being in charge of the management thereof. This terminology implied in this definition clearly goes to show that those who are in charge of or responsible for the management of the Cinema house whether they are strictly proprietors or not shall be included in the definion of the term proprietor. This terminology implied in this definition clearly goes to show that those who are in charge of or responsible for the management of the Cinema house whether they are strictly proprietors or not shall be included in the definion of the term proprietor. It is not disputed that rule 8-A and rule 13 talk about the responsibility of the proprietor for the compliance of those rules. Apparently therefore if rule 8-A and rule 13 are not complied with the person who can be held responsible will be the person who is the proprietor within the meaning of sub-clause (f) of section 2. 9. The only material before the Court was that accused No. 1 was the Manager and No.2, 3 and 4 were the partners. This was what was alleged in the complaint filed against the respondent and others. The other three accused persons pleaded guilty, the present respondent admitted that he was a partner but further clarified that he was a sleeping partner not connected with the management of the Cinema house. This fact that he was not connected with the management of the Cinema house has not been controverter either by adducing evidence nor by any allegation made in the complaint. Apparently therefore the Court below was bound to accept the plea raised by the respondent. The Court below was therefore left with the fact that this respondent is partner but a partner who is sleeping partner not connected with the management of the cinema house in any manner. To these facts if the definition of proprietor is applied as the Court below did. it could not be doubted that such a person would not fall within the ambit of the definiton of propriety or as provided in section 2 sub-clause (f). The Court below was therefore right in acquitting the respondent. 10. I, therefore; see no merit in this appeal, it is therefore dismissed, The acquittal of the respondent is maintained.