VASUDEVA RAO H Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted by the learned District Magistrate of South Kanara in S.T.C. No. 4 of 1959 on his file, for three offences under the Factories Act (which shall be hereinafter called the "Act"). Firstly he was convicted under Section 92 read with Section 6 and Rule 5(3) of the rules framed under the "Act" (hereinafter called the "rules") for having carried on the manufacturing process in a "Factory" without, obtaining a licence under the "Act," and the "Rules" from the Chief Inspector of Factories, Mangalore; secondly under Section 92 read with Section 112 and Rule 104 for not maintaining a register of accidents and dangerous occurrences in the prescribed form--Form 26); and lastly under Section 92 read with Section 112 and Rule 105 for having failed to maintain a bound inspection book as prescribed by Forms 7, 28 and 29. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge of South Kanara confirmed the convictions, though he modified the sentences of fine imposed. As per the modified sentences the petitioner was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 25 for each of the offences for which he was convicted, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week under each head.

(2.) Various contentions, big and small, were taken by the accused in the Courts below. In this Court the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K.R.D. Karanth pressed only two contentions. He urged that (1) the conviction for an offence under Section 6 read with Rule 5(3) is barred under Section 106 of the "Act"; and (2) on the facts proved it is shown that the offences were committed by the petitioner in good faith and consequently the prosecution is unsustainable in view of Section 117 of the "Act."

(3.) The ground of limitation under Section 106 is founded on the following facts: P.W. 1; M. Chami Nair, the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bangalore, according to the evidence given by him, visited the "factory" of the petitioner on 12 March 1957, 9 December 1957 and 5 June 1958; on all those occasions he found that the petitioner was working the "factory" without a licence. But the complaint in this case was filed sometime in 1959 and that on the basis of the show-cause notice issued on 29 December 1958, which was given after an inspection by P.W. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the offence came to the knowledge of the Chief Inspector even as early as 12 March 1957 and the complaint not having been filed within three months from that date, the Court was precluded from taking cognizance of the offence in question. Sri K.R.D. Karanth did not press the ground of limitation with regard to the second and the third charges which relate to offences which are clearly "continuing offences." Hence we have to see whether the offence of carrying on the manufacturing process is an establishment without obtaining a licence under the "Act" and the "Rules" from the Chief Inspector of Factories Is a "continuing offence." Sri Karanth placed considerable reliance on the decision in Public Prosecutor v. T.A. Rathnam Pillai 1959--I L.L.J. 257 in support of his contention. Before we proceed to consider that decision it is necessary to acquaint ourselves with the relevant provisions of the "Act" and the "Rules." The relevant portion of Section 6 reads: The State Government may make rules:-