STATE Vs. P KALEESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State, represented by the learned public Prosecutor, is against the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional judicial Magistrate, Sattur, acquitting the respondent in C. C. No. 371 of 1983 on his file.

(2.) THE respondent was prosecuted for violation of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the rules framed thereunder. THE prosecution case is that P. W. 1, the Assistant Inspector of Factories, Sivakasi, inspected Sabai Match Industries, belonging to the respondent at 11. 30 a. m. on 14-6-1982. During the course of his inspection, the respondent was present p. W. I found that totally 26 men and 118 women apart from 5 minors were working in the factory. Since no child who had not Completed 14 years of age, shall be required or allowed to work in any factory in terms of section 67 of the factories Act, P. W. 1 would depose that it is an illegality. P. W. 1 also found that Form 25-B relating to Time-card had not been maintained. No acknowledgements had also been obtained from the labourers and this was in violation of S. 112 read with Rule 103-B of the Factories Act and Rules. P. W. I further noticed violation of S. 83 read with Rule 87 of the Factories Act and rules in that Form No. 15 relating to holidays with wages had not been maintained and not produced when demanded.

(3.) THIRU v. Sairam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend that the acquittal by the trial court has to be sustained since P. W. 1 has not even deposed in his evidence that he was empowered to prosecute the respondent under the Factories Act, let alone the non-production of the Government order. On the contrary, he has stated in the cross-examination that he had obtained the previous sanction from the Inspector of Factories, which was available on his file. Regarding the second and third grounds of acquittal, THIRU Sairam would submit that they may not have to be gone into if his first submission were to be accepted.