IN RE: KANDASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was convicted under S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week, has filed the above revision.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows : The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli who has been examined as P.W. 1 in this case, appears to have inspected, on 28th June, 1978, the premises of the petitioner at Thatchanallur within the Sugar Mill Compound. P. W. 1 found that the petitioner was running a chicory factory. During his inspection, he found M.Os. 1 to 6 in the premises, which were not reverified and stamped within a period of one year after 1976 'B' Quarter. He seized them under an attached, Ex. P2 and also gave a copy to the petitioner. Later of, a show cause notice, Ex. P3 was issued to the petitioner for violating the rules mentioned therein. The petitioner sent a reply, Ex. P5 pleading for condonation to the allegations mentioned in Ex. P3. Thereafter, the respondent herein, after obtaining sanction, filed the present complaint against the petitioner under S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958.

(3.) When the petitioner was questioned, he denied the offence, The petitioner contended that the premises owned by him comes under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, that it cannot be termed to be a 'factory' and that, if it is not a 'factory' he will not be obliged to reverify and stamp the weights and measures. To substantiate his case, he produced certain records maintained by him to show that the premises comes within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. The prosecution tried to prove, that the petitioner is running a 'factory' and that it cannot come within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Shops] and Establishments Act. Under R. 10(l) of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1967, the following clause is found-'factory' to which the Factories Act, 1948, applies'. While clarifying the clause, the Labour Commissioner stated that the Factories Act applies to a place which is deemed to be a factory under S. 85 of the Factories Act, and the case against the petitioner being under R. 10(l) of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures Rules, 1967, the premises run by the petitioner will come within the purview of" the Factories Act as the manufacturing process is carried on. It was also contended by the prosecution that the Tamil Nadu Government has issued a notification, G. O. Ms. No. 2909 (Lab), dated 9th September, 1967, Department of Industries, Labour and Housing, wherein item No. 4 of the said G. O. relates to flour milling and grinding of condiments. The contention of the prosecution is that the petitioner is running a factory where the manufactured product is only a 'condiment' and that item No. 4 of the aforesaid G.O. is applicable. As far as the Notification is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial court, that, the existence of a flour milling unit alone is not sufficient for attracting the applicability of the Notification and it must also be a grinding unit of condiment. In short, the contention of the petitioner before the trial Court was that the premises owned by him comes within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act and that the flour milling and grinding of condiments does not take place in, the premises but, on the other hand he prepares or manufactures only chicory and not a condiment. The trial court on an elaborate discussion, came to the conclusion that the petitioner's premises comes within the purview of the Factories Act, that the petitioner has failed to reverify and stamp the weights and measures within a period of one year after 1976 and that, therefore the petitioner has violated S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Weights Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958. The petitioner, under the circumstances, was found guilty and was convicted under the aforesaid section and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one week. Against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the above criminal revision.