PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. P N PALANISWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. Ap. No. 661 of 1957: This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, in C. C. No. 185 of 1957.

(2.) THE respondent, was prosecuted for an offence under Section 6 of the Factories act read with Section 92 and Rule 5 (3) of the Madras Factories Rules, 1950. The case is that the respondent, who is the proprietor of a rice mill, was carrying on the business of the rice mill, viz. , the manufacturing process of boiling, drying and hulling of paddy in the premises without a licence granted by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Madras, as required by the rules. A rice mill becomes a factory within the definition of that expression in the Act if he employes 10 or more persons for working on any day. It is alleged that on 20-3-1957 the Additional Inspector of Factories, Erode 1 circle, inspected the factory and fund 17 workers engaged in the business of manufacturing process of boiling, drying and hulling of paddy. The Additional inspector of Factories, who is examined as P. W. 1, speaks to the fact that he saw 10 men and 7 women working in the mill. He says he noted down the names of 17 workers and ascertained from the workers that they were being paid wages. He also appears to have ascertained the type of work, which these men and women were doing at that time.

(3.) THE respondent denied that he employed these 17 men and women and he denied the offence. He examined four defence witnesses on his side to show that he did not employ these 17 persons in his mill on the day when the Inspector came to inspect the factory. The case of the respondent is that excepting two or three, whom he has employed, the rest of them were all persons who brought paddy for the purpo. se of being hulled in the rice mill, and that, therefore, they could not be called workers within the meaning of the expression in the Act.