STATE BY INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, TIRUNELVELI, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS Vs. MURUGESAN, S/O, SUBRAMANIA NADAR, PROPRIETOR AND MANAGER SOUNDRA RICE MILL, KOTTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in S.T.C. No. 119/86 for offences under S. 6(1) read with R.3(1), S. 6(1) read with R.4 and S. 7(1) read with R.12 read with S. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and the Rules framed there under.

(2.) FACTS briefly are as follows: P.W.1 the Factory Inspector, inspected the Rice Mill of the respondent in D. No. 33/8 -90 -91, Vaithianatha puram, Kottar, Ettamozhi Road, Nagercoil, the inspection was on 14.11.1985 at 1.30 p.m. At the time of the inspection 12 workers were working in the Rice Mill doing boiling, drying, hulling, winnowing and other rice mill operations. Two electric motors one 20 HP. strength and the other 3 HP. were working. He noticed that no approved plan from the authorities had been obtained, that the Rice Mill had not been registered under the Factories Act and no report 15 days prior to the commencement of the work had been sent. He, therefore, examined the 12 workers, getting their father's name, age and other details of their employment and salary particulars from them. He prepared Ex.P1 report and after giving the necessary show cause notice and observing the other formalities, he laid complaint against the respondent for the offences mentioned above.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there was no basis for disbelieving the evidence of P.W.1 who stated that at the time of inspection of the Rice Mill, work was in full swing, the two motors running and all the 12 persons mentioned in his Ex.P.1 were engaged in the various operations mentioned in Ex.P.1 itself and that the appreciation of P.W.1's evidence was totally perverse, resulting in miscarriage of justice making it impossible for the authorities to implement the social legislation.