YAKUB ALI HUSSAIN PROP AND MANAGER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No.951 of 1999 is directed against the judgment and conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 41, Rule 61 (E), (F), (O) and (N) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act and sentence imposed to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/=.

(2.) CRIMINAL Appeal No:1008 of 1999 is directed against the conviction of the accused by the same Judge under Section 41, Rule 6(1), 3(5)(A) and Section 87 Rule 95 Schedule 31, Item 6 of the Factories Act. Though the appellant has been held guilty for the above alleged offences of the Factories Act, he has been acquitted for the reason that in the connection C.C.No:45 of 1995, he has been convicted and following the ruling of this court in 1997 (2) MWN (Cri) 87 that only one sentence is enough for two violations under the Factories Act. However, as against the findings of conviction, this CRIMINAL Appeal is filed by the accused/appellant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that the Government has no power to delegate the powers of the Inspector of Factories to the Assistant Inspector of Factories. The above said Government Order would show that throughout Tamil Nadu Assistant Inspector of Factories have been conferred with the powers of Inspector of Factories for certain local limits under their control, because among various other reasons. The main reason is that it is impossible for the Inspector of Factories of a particular local limit alone to visit all the Factories within his jurisdiction, because the jurisdiction is very wide. For example, as per this Government Order, the 6th Circle consist of all other areas of Saidapet Taluk exclusive of Madhavaram Panchayat Union area, Tiruvottiur Municipality, Ambattur Township, Villivakkam Panchayat Union area of Chengalpattu MGR District, Kancheepuram, Madhuranthakam, Uthiramerur and Chengalpattu Taluks of Chengalpattu MGR District Madras City Corporation Divisions 146 to 148. Within this jurisdiction there are thousands of factories are situated. The Inspector of Factories alone cannot physically visit and inspect all the factories within a reasonable time. Further one person alone cannot attend all the courts by filing prosecutions and give evidence. Considering the wide jurisdiction and enormous number of factories in certain limits, theState Government has delegated the powers of the Inspector of Factories to the Assistant Inspector of Factories to inspect the factories independently and also to initiate prosecution against the offenders of the Factories Act and Rules. Therefore the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Assistant Inspector of Factories are not empowered with the power to prosecute the offenders under the Factories Act and Rules is not sustainable.