No prosecution under this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder can be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the Chief Inspector appointed under the Act. Further no court inferior to that of Magistrate of First Class can try any offence under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder. In other words, no prosecution can be launched against any person for violation of any provision of the Act except with the prior approval or previous sanction of the Chief Inspector.

Section 40 of this Act contemplates that if in any shop or establishment there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder except sections 33, 41 and 42, the proprietor, the employer or the manager thereof, as the case may be, shall, on conviction, be punished with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees and which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees. It appears that a division has been made for contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder into two broad classes, namely: (1) contravention of any provision except sections 33, 41 and 42, is punishable with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees and which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, and (2) contravention of the provision of section 33 punishable with fine of five rupees for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues. In other words, this section provides penalties for contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule or order made thereunder except those of—

1. section 41, which provides penalty for wilfully making false entries in records, registers or notice prescribed under section 33; and
2. section 42, which provides penalty for wilfully obstructing an Inspector in the exercise of any power under section 37 or for concealing an employee in the establishment from appearing before or being examined by an Inspector.
   Further this section punishes the proprietor, the employer or the manager, as the case may be, of the shop or establishment in which there has been any such contravention. Even the shop keepers who have no employee are covered by this section.

In view of the phraseology of the provision of section 204(1) of Cr. P.C. it is plain that before he proceeds to issue process for the attendance of the accused, the Magistrate has to form an opinion that prima facie there is sufficient ground for proceeding but he does not have to write down his reason in so many words for adopting that course. The purpose of the law will be quite satisfied if it can be gathered from the record of the case that he applied his mind to the material contemplated by section 200 or section 202 of Cr. P.C., as the case may be, and formed an opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding on its basis. There is no requirement of the law for a speaking order analysing the evidence adduced by the complainant or taking evidence how his mind worked so as to lead him to the issue of process. If such issue of process is challenged before a higher court it can find out from the complaint, the preliminary evidence, if any, and the result of the inquiry or investigation, if any, without any difficulty whether or not the order directing issue of summons/warrant and specifying the offence/offences made out against the accused prima facie was passed after due deliberation and is or is not justified by a sufficient ground; K.M. Misra v. The State, Cr. R. No. 305 of 1971 decided on 21-9-1971. See alsoUdey Bir Singh v. Smt. Shakuntla, 1973 (9) DLT 382 and Manoharlal Sharma v. Smt. Prem Lata, 1973 (9) DLT 379; Amrik Singh v. State ILR (1975) II Del. 69 (DB of Del. HC.);Ibid., In re P. Bapanaiah, AIR 1970 AP 47.

Thus, if the Magistrate thinks fit to postpone the issue of process after the complainant has been examined, he has to record his reasons. When he arrives at a decision that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings, he is required to state his reasons briefly by section 203. Sub section (7) of section 207A and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 209 contemplated the discharge of the accused in the course of enquiries into cases triable by the Court of Session or High Court but in each such case it is imperative for the Magistrate to give reasons for passing such an order. An order in writing has to precede the Magistrate’s requiring the parties concerned in the relevant dispute to attend his Court under section 145 of the Code. These are only a few of the numerous available examples. The authors of this Code could not have omitted when drafting section 204 to incorporate the requirement of recording of reasons for an order of issue of process, if any, were needed; Mubarak Karim v. Bundu, 1973 (9) DLT 318, per Safeer J. of Delhi High Court.

When a person pleads guilty before the court then the principle is that such a plea should be in terms of the contravention and not that such and such pleads guilty and hence be punished. In other words, it cannot be contended that it is not incumbent on the Magistrate to record the actual statement of the accused and that it is a sufficient conformity with the requirements of law if he records that the accused pleads guilty. The plea of the accused will be what he actually states and not the conclusion which the Magistrate reaches after hearing his statements.

The plea of guilty only amounts to an admission that the accused committed the acts alleged against him, and not an admission of the guilty under particular section of the Act. An accused person does not plead to a section of a criminal statute. He pleads guilty or not guilty to the facts, alleged to disclose an offence under that section.

Any person convicted of an offence for a contravention of any provisions of this Act by a Magistrate of First Class may appeal to the Court of Sessions (section 408 of Cr. P.C.). But no appeal shall lie where a trial is commenced before a Magistrate of First Class and the person convicted of an offence under this Act is sentenced by such Magistrate to fine not exceeding fifty rupees only (section 413 of Cr. P.C.), or is tried summarily by such Magistrate and sentenced to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees only (section 414 of Cr. P.C.). Where, however, an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced by a Magistrate of First Class on such plea, for any contravention of the provisions of this Act, there shall be no appeal except as to the extent or legality of the sentence (section 412 of Cr. P.C.).