V M PATEL Vs. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES ALWAYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the conviction of the petitioner for offences under clauses (a) and (d) of sub-s.(1) of S.6 and also under S.7 read with S.92 of the Factories Act (Act LXIII of 1948) The petitioner is the managing partner of a firm known by the name Gujarat Travancore Agency doing business at Mattancherry. This firm is dealing in pepper, and in that connection the process of drying, garbling and packing of pepper is being carried on in the premises of the firm at Mattancherry According to the prosecution the work thus carried on by this firm amounts to a manufacturing process as contemplated by the Factories Act and more than 20 persons are being regularly engaged by the petitioner to have this work done On this basis it is contended that the petitioner has been running a factory as defined in the Factories Act and the petitioners position is that of the occupier of the factory.

(2.) On 10-11-1953. Pw. 1 who is the Inspector of Factories. Northern Division, Alwaye, inspected the premises and on conducting the necessary inquiries, he was satisfied that the petitioner was running the factory without complying with the requirements of the Factories Act and has thus committed certain offences made punishable under S.92 of the Factories Act. S.112 of the Act empowered the State government to make rules providing for any matter which, under any of the provisions of the Act, is to be or may be prescribed or which may be considered expedient in order to give effect to the purposes of this Act. In exercise of this power, a set of rules were made and published by the State Government in the gazette dated 15th July 1952. These rules include rules contemplated by clauses (a) and (d) of S.6(1) of the Factories Act. This section deals with the approval, licensing and registration of factories and clause (a) states that the State government may make rules requiring the previous permission in writing of the State government or of the Chief Inspector to be obtained for the site on which the factory is to be situated and for the construction or extension of any factory or class or description of factories. Similarly clause (d) of the Section provides for making rules requiring the registration and licensing of factories or any class or description of factories, and prescribing the fees payable for such registration and licensing and for the removal of licences. R.3 and 4 of the rules already referred to are the relevant rules as contemplated by clauses (a) and (d) of S.6(1) of the Act. The petitioner has been conducting the pepper business in the premises of his firm without applying for and obtaining the permission of the State government or of the Chief Inspector for conducting the business at the particular site and also without obtaining the necessary registration and the license, and thus he is alleged to have contravened clauses (a) and (d) of S.6(1) and R.3 and 4 of the rules made under the Act. Sub-s.(1) of S.7 of the Act requires the occupier to give a written notice to the Chief Inspector at least 15 days before he begins to occupy or use any premises as a factory, containing the several particulars as enumerated in the sub-section. R.12 also deals with the same matter. No such notice was given by the petitioner. Contravention of these requirements of the Act and rules made under it, is made punishable by S.92 of the Act. That section states that the occupier and manager of the factory, on conviction of such an offence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or a fine which may extend to Rs. 500, or with both.

(3.) Pw. 1 prosecuted the petitioner for the offences already mentioned, by preferring a complaint after obtaining the sanction contemplated by S.105 of the Act. The main defence of the petitioner is that he is not running a factory as defined in the Factories Act and that therefore he is not bound to comply with the requirements of S.6 and 7 of the Factories Act or of R.3, 4 and 12 of the rules made under the Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate repelled this plea and found that the petitioner has been running a factory and that by contravening the requirements of the sections and rules already referred to, he has committed an offence punishable under S.92 of the Factories Act. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted under clauses (a) and (d) of sub-s.(1) of S.6 and under S.7, read with S.92 of the Factories Act, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 weeks. Against such conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1956 before the Sessions Court at Anjikaimal. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the fine to Rs. 5 The accused petitioner has come up in revision challenging the legality of the conviction entered against him by the lower court.