STATE Vs. G PRABHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is against the judgment of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri , acquitting the accused who has been charged for an offence under Rule 100 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules read with Sec. 92 of the Factories Act. The allegation against the respondent is that he has not submitted the annual return for year ending 31. 12. 1981 on or before 31. 1. 1982. The learned Magistrate found that P. W. 1. has admitted that the respondent has sent a reply to the show cause notice and that he has also shown before Court the certificate of posting for sending the reply. Therefore, the learned Magistrate thought that the benefit of doubt should be accorded to the accused and acquitted the respondent accused. The State challenges that order.

(2.) UNDER Rule 100 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1960, the Manager of every factory should furnish to the inspector an annual return for the calendar year in duplicate in Form No. 22 so as to reach the Inspector on or before the 31st January of the following year. In this case the annual return was sent to the Inspector of Factories in accordance with Rule 100 (2) in duplicate in Form No. 22. I must point out that the, evidence of P. W. 1. , the Inspector of Factories shows that the accused has produced before Court the certificate of posting for posting the reply to the show cause notice and also for posting the annual return. Most unfortunately, they have not been filed by the counsel for the respondent. But, when P. W. 1. admits that it looks like the reply sent for the show cause notice and when there is a certificate of posting and when there is evidence of posting, the Magistrate thought that the accused should have sent the return by post. The view taken by the Magistrate is not wrong. When there are some certificates of posting and when the accused asserts that he has sent them by certificates of posting, the Magistrate rightly gives the benefit of doubt and acquits the accused. Further, in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court should be slow in interfering with the judgment acquitting the accused even if two views are possible. For these reasons, this appeal against acquittal is dismissed.