STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHUPENDRA C SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals arise out of common judgment and order, and hence, they are taken up for final hearing together and are disposed by the common judgment.

(2.) BY way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat(for short 'Appellate Court') dated 4th January, 1989 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1983 as well as Criminal Appeal Nos.84 to 90 of 1983 whereby the appellate Court was pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order of the learned 4th Joint J.M.F.C., Surat (for short 'trial Court') dated 08.08.1983 passed in Criminal Case Nos.3209 to 3215 of 1981 as well as Criminal Case Nos.3279 to 3285 of 1981 whereby the trial Court convicted opponent No.1 and one late Shri. Prakashchandra Bhaichand Shah for the offence punishable under Section 68(A) of the Factories Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for each case and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - and in case of default to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven days. The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that, at the relevant point of time, opponent No.1 was running a factory in the name of Shantinath Silk Mills in which late Shri. Prakashchandra Bhaichand Shah i.e. original defendant No.1 was working as manager. The said factory was established under the provisions of Section 2(M)(1) of the Factory Act, 1948. On 09.07.1981, the building of the said factory collapsed. On account of the said accident, several workers got trapped into the debris of the factory and died and several others got injured. On coming to know about the aforesaid incident, opponent No.2, herein, visited the place of accident and at that time he came to know that opponent No.1 was employing the workers who were not adult, without following the due procedure prescribed under the Factories Act, 1948. Therefore, opponent No.2 filed various complaints / cases against opponent No.1 and original defendant No.1 alleging that some of the workers employed by them were not adult. Then, the trial Court heard all the parties and convicted and sentenced opponent No.1 as well as original defendant No.1, as stated in Para -1 of this judgment.