Judgment Sonia Gokani, J.—This revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2006. 2. It emerges from the record that the complaint was preferred after the complainant visited the premises of opponent accused on 30.5.2000 and having found violation certain provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, Criminal Case No.3256 of 2000 was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, which resulted into conviction and fine. The said order was challenged before the Sessions Court, Godhra in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2006 under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had set aside conviction and impugned order is challenged in present revision. 3. On having heard the learned APP and learned advocate Ms. Sneha Joshi and on perusal of the material evidence and judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that for the reasons to be followed hereinafter, present revision application requires dismissal. 3.1 First and foremost, the learned APP is unable to point any aspect of illegality or incorrectness in the order of Sessions Court during the hearing of present revision application. 3.2 A mere look at the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge go to suggest that for want of requisite evidence, it has not been able to sustain the order of the learned Magistrate. While discussing in detail the order of the learned Magistrate. Learned Sessions Court has correctly held that neither the statements of the labourers have been recorded nor the witnesses have been examined to substantiate the violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, it was not feasible to conclude whether the minimum wages had been paid to the labourer or not. From the cumulative facts and evidence before the Court, it came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to adduce requisite proof of the violation of the provision of Minimum Wages Act and accordingly quashed order of conviction. 4. From the submission sand the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that cogent and convincing reasons have been given on the order of the learned Sessions Judge while arriving at a just decision, which does not call for any interference. 4. From the submission sand the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that cogent and convincing reasons have been given on the order of the learned Sessions Judge while arriving at a just decision, which does not call for any interference. Since, it cannot be said that the findings arrived at are in any manner perverse or contrary to the provisions of the law, this revision is dismissed upholding the order of the Sessions Court. Amount paid by way of fine be refunded to the accused. Rule is discharged. P P P P P