MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused in CC No. 96 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nagercoil and he was tried for violation of Section 6(1)(2) of the Factories Act and Rule 4(1)(2) & (3) r/w. 12(b)(5) of the Rules framed under the said Act.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the Petitioner is that at 2 p.m. on 6.3.1991 PW1, the Assistant Inspector of Factories inspected Vidhu Match Works, a factory belonging to the Petitioner and found that he was running the factory with 16.5. Hours power motor where there were 12 persons working to run the factory. When he asked for the licence, he did not produce nor did he produce any receipt for the payment of licence fee. Ex.P. 1 is inspection report. Thereafter, the Assistant Inspector of Factories sent a show cause notice Ex.P.2 which was returned unserved. The Assistant Inspector of Factories made a further attempt to serve the notice through his employee, which was also refused by the accused. The Assistant Inspector of Factories, then sent a notice under certificate of posting and the certificate of posting is marked as Ex.P.3. After obtaining sanction from the Additional Chief Inspector of Factories, he filed the complaint against the accused.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Counsel, since no sanction was obtained from the Assistant Inspector of Factories, he is not competent to lay the complaint. Countering the said argument, learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to my notice Ex.P -4 copy of the sanction order, issued by the Additional Chief Inspector of Factories. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that Ex.P -4 is not the original order issued by the Additional Chief Inspector of Factories but only a copy.