ASISH BARAN MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal arises out of Judgement and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk on August 8, 1989 in Case No. 183c of 1987. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in short is that on the basis of a complaint filed by Labour Enforcement Officer (central) and Inspector appointed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970 hereinafter referred to as the Act made on the basis of an alleged inspection on December 16, 1986 when the former found more than 20 Contract Labours being engaged by the accused O. P. who were doing work without there being a valid license under the said Act. The accused is also stated to have omitted to maintain different registers, including registers of wages, register of master rolls, register of fines, register of advances, register for deduction for damages or loss, register of over-time and register of persons employed. Accordingly, the accused are alleged to have contravened Section 12 (1) of the said Act read with Rules 76, 78, 79, 80 and 81 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules 1971. ( 3 ) TWO Witnesses including the Labour Enforcement Officer-Cum-Inspector were examined by the prosecution. The Defence did not examine any witness but took the Defence that no inspection took place in the presence of accused, that there is no irregularity and Learned Magistrate on a consideration of materials on record found the prosecution story not believable due to the omission to examine any of the alleged labourers or any local man and also on the basis of the finding that the defecto complainant was not authorised to file the complaint in accordance with Section 26 of the Act. Accordingly, he recorded an order of acquittal. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved, present appeal has been preferred by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta challenging the finding of the Lower Court and urging that finding of the Magistrate regarding maintainability of the prosecution case so far as the status of the complaint is concerned is not correct. The absence of local witness or non-examination of said workers cannot be a ground for disbelieving the prosecution story in the face of the evidence of the complainant. The absence of local witness or non-examination of said workers cannot be a ground for disbelieving the prosecution story in the face of the evidence of the complainant. ( 5 ) NONE appears for the appellant at the time of hearing and accordingly the Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent was heard at length on June 13, 1996 later management was also filed. There was no move from the side of the appellant from that day till this day about the omission on the part of anybody on behalf of the appellant to appear during hearing and no move was taken by the appellant to have their argument heard in the meantime. ( 6 ) THE prosecution examined two witnesses including P. W. 1 the Labour Enforcement Officer. His evidence is that on the relevant date, that is December 16, 1986 he visited the establishment and found the accused contractor engaging 21 workers without any valid license and without maintaining the different registers as required under the Act and Rules. There was also no display of the form as required under the law. He proved his inspection report which is stated to have been signed by one Krishna Gopal Das, Site-in-Charge. He also prepared a statement of workers which was also duly signed by the witnesses present. From the cross examination it is clear that the accused was not present on the spot at the time of alleged inspection but one Shri D. Chowdhury and one Shri Krishna Gopal Das was alleged to have been present. He admits that he did not keep any note in his inspection report to show that those persons were acting on behalf of the accused. It appears from his cross examination that a show-cause notice was issued on the accused but it is strange that as per evidence of P. W. 1. in cross examination he did not go through the reply to the show-cause notice alleged to have been submitted by the accused. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 is Senior Welfare Officer attached to Haldia Oil Refinery. He accompanied Labour Enforcement Officer, P. W. I on December 16, 1986. They found construction of road going on and P. W. I prepared an inspection report which was signed by P. W. 3. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 is Senior Welfare Officer attached to Haldia Oil Refinery. He accompanied Labour Enforcement Officer, P. W. I on December 16, 1986. They found construction of road going on and P. W. I prepared an inspection report which was signed by P. W. 3. In a cross-examination he stated that he did not know any person other than the accused in respect of the establishment in question. This is all the evidence on record, ( 8 ) IN the course of examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused stated that he had all the papers in his office but as the construction was going on in an open space, papers for obvious reason could not be kept there. These are all the evidence on record. I have scrutinised the judgement of the Trial Court and I do not think that there is any infirmity incoming to the conclusion by the Learned Trial Magistrate. Excepting the uncorroborated testimony of P. W. 1, there is nothing on record to show that the establishment alleged to be run by the accused comes under the Contract Labour Act. There is also no reason for non-examination of any of the workers or any local persons even the Senior Welfare Officer, namely, P. W. 2 did not say specifically in so many words that the establishment comes under the Contract Labour Act or that there was omission to maintain the different registers as required underthe said Act. Therefore, it is not un-natural for the Learned Magistrate not to place full reliance on uncorroborated testimony of P. W. I alone. ( 9 ) REGARDING the point of authorisation the P. W. 1 has described himself as Labour Enforcement Officer. Nowhere he has stated that he was also acting as the Inspector within the meaning of Section 26 of the said Act which authorises only the Inspector or in his absence person having the previous sanction in writing of such Inspector to make a complaint before the designated Magistrate as mentioned in the Act for alleged contravention of the said Act. It is true that there is averment of authorisation in the complaint itself but as the complaint cannot take the place of evidence in the face of examination of the complainant the omission to state that P. W. 1 is either acting in his capacity as Inspector or was authorised by an Inspector in this behalf in writing the complaint filed before the Magistrate cannot be taken as sacrosanct, so far as authorisation is concerned. Accordingly, for both these reasons the order must stand. Hence ordered that the appeal be dismissed on merit.