STATE Vs. P R SELVARAJ RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal by the State represented by the public Prosecutor has been filed against the judgment of the learned Seventh metropolitan Magistrate, Madras in C. C. No. 11134 of 1976 acquitting the respondent-accused of an offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with section 6 of that Act and rule 3 (2) (b) of the Rules framed in exercise of the power conferred by section 6 to frame Rules.

(2.) THE accused is stated to be a partner of Messrs. Lotus offset Printers carrying on business at No. 88, Suryanarayana Chetty Street, royapuram, Madras-13. On 24th February, 1976, Subbayya P. W. 1, the Factories inspector, II Circle, Madras, visited the premises bearing door No. 88, suryanarayana Chetty Street, Royapuram, Madras-13, at 10-15 a. m. and found 12 persons working in the place where there was an offset printing press worked with the aid of a 78. 4 hp. electric motor. But then P. W. 1, found that the factory was being worked at a place in respect of which no plan had been approved by the Chief Inspector of Factories, as required by rule 3 (2) (b) of the Rules. THEreupon P. W. 1, prepared the inspection report, Exhibit P-1, about what he found and about the factory being worked without an approved plan. Subsequently on 10th March, 1976, P. W. 1 sent the show cause notice, Exhibit p-2, by registered post and received the acknowledgment, Exhibit P-3 dated 12th march, 1976. On 25th March, 1976 the accused sent a reply, Exhibit P-4, requesting time till 15th April, 1976, for submitting the blue prints on the ground that the factory was engaged in closing accounts. No blue prints were sent and on 21st May, 1976, the complaint was filed for an offence under section 6 read with rule 3 (2) (b) of the Rules punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.

(3.) SECTION 6 of the Factories Act, 1948, enables the state Government to make rules inter alia requiring previous permission in writing of the State Government or the Chief Inspector to be obtained for the site on which the factory is to be situated and for construction or extension of any factory or class or description of factories. Rule 3 (1) of the rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6 of the Act states that no site shall be used for the location of a factory nor shall any building be constructed, reconstructed or extended for use as a factory, nor shall any manufacturing process be carried or in any building, constructed, reconstructed or extended without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Inspector, and that the previous permission of the Chief Inspector shall also be obtained for the installation of additional machinery or for the installation of prime movers exceeding the horse-power already installed in the factory. Rule 3 (2) (b) lays down that application for such permission shall be made in Form No. 1 in triplicate and shall accompany plans in triplicate drawn to scale showing the site of the factory and immediate surroundings including adjacent buildings and other structures, roads, drains and the like. SECTION 92 of the Act lays down that save as is otherwise expressly provided in the Act and subject to the provisions of section 93, if in or in respect of any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of any Rules made thereunder etc. , the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to seventy five rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued.