Madras High Court
King Emperor vs Takasi Nukayya on 3 May, 1901
Equivalent citations: (1901)ILR 24MAD660
JUDGMENT
1. In Criminal Appeal No. 22,--The offence created by the Workman's Breach of Contract Act (XIII of 1859) is not the neglect or refusal of the workman to perform his contract, but the failure by the workman to comply with an order made by the Magistrate that the workman repay the money advanced' or perform the contract. In the present case, the complainant withdrew the case before the Magistrate had made any order Consequently, there bad been no offence under the Act and there-was nothing to acquit him of, It is not necessary for us to consider whether the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to offences under the Act. Here there was no offence and the Magistrate-was quite wrong in proceeding upon the assumption that the Code of Criminal Procedure applies and that it was his duty to "acquit" under Section 248 of the Code. The order of the Magistrate in so far as it allows the complainant to withdraw the case will stand. In so far as it purports to acquit the defendant it must be set aside.
2. In Criminal Appeal No. 23 -- It follows from what has been said above that the Magistrate's order based on the view that the defendant had already been "acquitted" in the same matter must also be set aside. We direct the Magistrate to restore the case to his file and deal with it according to law.