Judgment :- This is an appeal against acquittal. 2. Accused No.1 was the partner and accused No.2 was the Manager of M/s. Muruga Home Industries at Koodangulam. It was involved in manufacture of beedi. A.1 and A.2 were charged for the offence under rule 36(3) read with rules 36(7), 36(2), 36(2)(a)(i)(ii) read with rule 36(7) read with 33(1) read with Section 33(1) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act, on the ground that the five women workers were not brought on record as the real home workers; though their husbands' names were recorded as home workers, it was really those five women were the home workers. The service book as required was not given to the workers and service book was not submitted to the Inspector of Labour, Cheranmahadevi. 3. During the pendency of the trial, A.1 dead. Hence, the charge against him abates. The trial Court after recording evidence, acquitted the second accused as the charges were not proved. Against that, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution is that five women who came to the factory premises to hand over rolled beedies on 19.3.1993 at 2.45 p.m. were examined by the Inspector of Labour. When he enquired the five women, they stated that they were really engaged in manufacturing of beedies and not their husbands as stated in the pass-books which were in their possession. Therefore, charges were framed as stated above. All these five women were examined as P.Ws.1 to 5. They have stated that in their house, they along with their husbands and the children used to roll beedies. Any one of the family members would deliver the rolled beedies to the factory. The pass-book contained only the names of their husbands and also the photographs of their husbands. They have also stated that they do not know what are the contents of the statements recorded by the Inspector of Labour on that date. All the five women have stated in the similar manner. From this evidence, it was proved it was only the husbands of all the five women who were really "home employees". Admittedly, it is permissible for any one of the members to deliver the rolled beedies to the manufacturing unit. Therefore, merely because these women brought the rolled beedies, it cannot be presumed they are the real home makers. 5. From this evidence, it was proved it was only the husbands of all the five women who were really "home employees". Admittedly, it is permissible for any one of the members to deliver the rolled beedies to the manufacturing unit. Therefore, merely because these women brought the rolled beedies, it cannot be presumed they are the real home makers. 5. The Public Prosecutor further submitted that P.W.6, Inspector of Labour while filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, pointed out certain violations of the provisions of the Act by the beedi manufacturers, but he was not examined in spite of the request made by the prosecution. Had he been examined, his evidence would have proved that these five women were the real workmen and not the husbands. Even assuming that P.W.6 had stated that these five workmen were the real home workers and not their husbands, the very same women had deposed to the contrary, viz., that they were not the home workers and it was only their husbands who are the real home workers. 6. Under the circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 will stand and it cannot be rejected. Therefore, in view of the fact that these five women (according to the prosecution are the real home workers), when they themselves deposed that they were not the real home workers and it was their husbands, the judgment of the trial Court cannot be said to be illegal. Hence, the appeal is to liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.