Judgment 1. The respondent was prosecuted by the appellant for the offence committed under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 in S.T.C. No.3926 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-V, Salem. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent by a judgment dated 30.07.2004 and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the prosecution. 2. The case of the appellant is that the respondent is an employee as defined under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and as per Section 3, every employee employed is entitled to three national holidays and five other holidays and the employer shall maintain a Register in Form No.6 by making the entry relating to the number of holidays as stated under Section 3. It is the further case of the appellant that on the date of inspection, the respondent did not maintain Form No.6 and therefore, he has violated Rule 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Rules, 1959, (in short 'Rules') which is punishable under Section 8 of the Act. To prove the said charge, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked his Inspection Report dated 13.05.2003 as Ex.P1; Show Cause notice dated 20.05.2003 as Ex.P2; order dated 27.06.2003 as Ex.P3 and the letter of the respondent dated 02.06.2003 as Ex.P4. The respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Form No.6 as Ex.D1. 3. The learned Magistrate held that the respondent maintained Form No.6 as proof and as it was also signed by P.W.1 on 30.01.2003, acquitted the respondent, as he has not committed any offence punishable under Section 8 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the appellant that the learned Magistrate without properly appreciating the case of the complainant that on the date of inspection, Form No.6 was not shown to him for inspection, has acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the appellant that the learned Magistrate without properly appreciating the case of the complainant that on the date of inspection, Form No.6 was not shown to him for inspection, has acquitted the respondent. He further submitted that even assuming that Ex.D1-Form No.6 would prove that it was attested by P.W.1 on 30.01.2003, the inspection was conducted on 13.05.2003 and on the said date, the Register in Form No.6 was not produced and therefore, the prosecution was launched and hence, the judgment of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside and the appeal has to be allowed. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant. As stated supra, the case of the prosecution is that the respondent failed to maintain Form No.6 and therefore, the same is punishable under Section 8 of the Act. Ex.D1 is Form No.6 maintained by the respondent and that was also attested by P.W.1 on 30.01.2003. It is also admitted by P.W.1 that he saw Ex.D1 namely, Form No.6 on 30.01.2003 and attested the same. Therefore, the respondent has proved that he has maintained Form No.6. The only complaint by the appellant is that during his inspection on 13.05.2003, Form No.6 was not produced and the respondent has given his explanation vide Ex.P4, wherein, he has stated that as per Rule 7(1), if the particulars regarding holidays are mentioned in the Register, there is no need to maintain Form No.6 and without considering that, the prosecution was launched. 6. It is seen from the proviso to Rule 7 that no separate Register need to be maintained if the Inspecting Official having jurisdiction over the area is satisfied with the particulars required to be kept in Form No.6 is mentioned in any other Register maintained by any employer. It is seen from Ex.D1- Form No.6 that the same was prescribed under Rule 7 of the said Rules and it is admittedly counter-signed by P.W.1. Hence, it cannot be stated that the respondent failed to maintain Form No.6 and even assuming that it was not shown to P.W.1 during inspection, that will not constitute any offence. It is seen from Ex.D1- Form No.6 that the same was prescribed under Rule 7 of the said Rules and it is admittedly counter-signed by P.W.1. Hence, it cannot be stated that the respondent failed to maintain Form No.6 and even assuming that it was not shown to P.W.1 during inspection, that will not constitute any offence. According to me, failure to maintain Form No.6 will constitute an offence and failure to show that Register will not amount to an offence, as the respondent has maintained Form No.6 as per Ex.D1. The learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent and I do not find any infirmity in its judgment. Hence, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.