Be fore the Magistrate two.
The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Raipur, who agreeing with the findings of the Magistrate, dismissed the revision.
P.C., because the order passed by the Magistrate was an order of discharge and number of acquittal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 6, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No.
On the second point the High Court held that the Municipal Council fell within the definition of the expression motor transport undertaking.
He filed a companyplaint before the Special Magistrate and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, who issued summons to the accused, namely, the Municipal Council and the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Raipur.
The State then filed a revision under s. 439, Cr.
The Magistrate accepted these companytentions and dismissed the companyplaint and discharged the accused persons.
The High Court overruled the preliminary objection and held that a revision lay under s. 439, Cr.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
159 of 1966.
P.C. The companytention was that the accused had been acquitted and number discharged and, therefore, only a.n appeal under s. 417.
and for maintenance of public order, i.e., for transporting night soil and refuse of the town free of charges.
The accused appeared by companynsel and filed preliminary objections.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
had been employed by the Council but the Council had number been registered as required under s. 3 1 of the Act.
L. Sanghi and P.C. Bhartari, for the appellants.
Inspector Ahuja inspected the Municipal Council, Raipur, under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act and found that 50 transport workers, including drivers, companyductors, mechanics, etc.,
163 of 1967.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts.
