STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ANVER MOHMADBHAI KOTHAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was tried for contravention for section 61 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 87 of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules') and on his own plea of guilty, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. The State, feeling aggrieved by the order of sentence, has filed this appeal for enhancement of sentence.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the Factory Inspector visited the factory of the respondent on 15.10.1981 and detected that the notice of periods of work was not displayed on the notice board either in the prescribed form or in any other manner and thereby the respondent committed breaches of section 61 of the Act and Rule 87 of the Rules. It is also the prosecution case that the respondent had earlier committed a similar breach and was convicted for the same. The particulars of the offence were read over to the respondent and he pleaded guilty to the charge. On the basis thereof the learned Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him under section 94 of the Act to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-.

(3.) What is urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that section 61 contains a salutary provision for correctly maintaining and displaying a notice of periods of work for the adult workers; and the breach thereof cannot be lightly viewed that would permit malpractices and prevent the authorities under the Act from finding out whether the workers are made to work overtime or not. It is not merely a technical default and such breaches on the part of the employer must be strictly viewed. In my opinion, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is right in his submission. It is not the case of the respondent that due to circumstances beyond his control he could not display the notice as required by section 61 of the Act and Rule 87 of the Rules. No extenuating circumstances were pointed out by the respondent for taking a lenient view regarding the sentence. Moreover, this was the second offence committed by the respondent and, therefore, a minimum fine of Rs. 200/- ought to have been imposed. It is difficult to appreciate how the learned Magistrate, while punishing the respondent under section 94 thought it fit to impose a fine of 50/- only. The order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate can, therefore, be said to be not only inadequate but also illegal. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be met of the respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.