STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANSARA MANILAL BHIKHALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the order passed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge Surendranagar sitting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Wadhwan in respect of an offence under the Factories Act 1948.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the accused in this case is the manager and occupier of a factory known as Saurashtra Metal and Mechanical Works Wadhwan and that he had contravened the provisions of sec. 63 of the Factories Act 1948 by allowing the workers of the factory to work otherwise than in accordance with the periods of work mentioned on the Notice Board and in the Register The prosecution case further is that on June 21 1960 at about 5-50 a.m. the Inspector of Factories Mr. K. C. Shah visited the factory in question and he found three workers working in the factory even though the time for these workers as mentioned in the notice Board and the Register was from 7 a. m. The defence of the accused was that at the relevant time he was not the manager and occupier of the factory but his partner Mr. D. A. Dangi was the manager The learned Magistrate after going into the merits of the question disbelieved this aspect of the matter and held that the accused was the manager and the occupier of the factory. The defence of the accused further was that the machinery of the factory in question had gone out of order on June 20 1960 which was repaired immediately and the work was started earlier the next day as an urgent order was to be executed by the factory; and that a letter was written to the Inspector of Factories on June 20 1960 That letter is Ex. 11 in the trial Courts record and by that letter intimation was sent that on June 21 1960 the rolling machine was to start work at 5 a.m. and therefore the letter was written for granting the permission for the same.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused under sec. 63 read with sec. 94 of the Factories Act 1948 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/in respect of each of the three workers and thus he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 300/in default to suffer R. I. for one month. Against that order of conviction and sentence the accused went in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Surendranagar. The learned Sessions Judge Surendranagar allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentenced passed against the accused and acquitted the accused of the offences with which he stood charged.