S SANJEEVARAYA SETTY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the three revisions the same question of law arises and can be dealt with together. In Crl. R. C. No. 1202 of 1961, when P. W. 1 inspected the premises, he found four persons working at the premises at 9-30 a. m. and during the second shift at 9-45 p. m. the same day he found different persons working, and during the third shift at 10-15 p. m. he found three other persons working. In the other two revision petitions also the officer during the same day in the three shifts, found 10 or more persons working. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate found that, as it' has been proved that ten persons were working on the day, the premises kept by the accused should be construed as a factory Under Section 2 (m) (i) of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this conclusion is erroneous and unsustainable in law. Section 2 (m) of the Factories Act defines the word "factory" as follows :

(2.) THE evidence of the officer in each of the cases is that he saw ten or more persons in all were working during the three shifts. The evidence will not satisfy the requirement of the first clause of Section 2 (m) of the Act that "ten or more workers are working. " In this view I accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and allow the petitions. The convictions and sentences in the three petitions are set aside, the accused are acquitted and fines if paid will be refunded.