STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JETHALAL GHELABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for determination is whether that cover having been removed without the knowledge or consent or connivance of the respondent he could still be held guilty of breach of sec. 21(1)(iv)(c) read with sec. 92 of the Act. As we have said the learned Magistrate found that he was not and that finding has been strenuously challenged by the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader contended that (1) under sec 21(1)(iv)(c) of the Act the liability of the occupier or the manager of a factory was absolute; and (2) that if sec. 21(1)(iv)(c) were to be read with sec. 101 of the Act it would be clear that unless the occupier or manager of a factory when charged with an offence punishable under this Act files a complaint to have any other person whom he charges as an actual offender brought before the court at the time appointed for the hearing of the charge against him and proves to the satisfaction of the court that that person committed the offence in question without his knowledge consent or connivance the absolute liability provided for in sec. 21(1) would remain attached to him and he should be found guilty of the breach of the provisions of that section.

(3.) In order to appreciate these two contentions of the learned Government Pleader it would be necessary to quote these two sections. Section 21(1)(iv)(c) provides as follows: