STATE OF U P Vs. SHIVA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party was challaned for violation of Rule 3 read with Rule 6 of the U. P. Factories Rules 1950. On an inspection dated 12-2-1976 made by the Factory Inspector it was found that the accused was running the factory without obtaining the prior sanction as contemplated by the aforesaid rules. By the impugned order dated 28-10-1977 the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that it has not been established that the premises in question were being used as a factory. Aggrieved the State has filed the above appeal in the year 1978.

(2.) I have heard State counsel and Sri Triloki Nath, learned counsel for the accused-opposite party and have gone through the record. I find that before the trial court the Factory Inspector had filed his inspection report and in that report he was specifically stated that numbers of workers working in the factory were 60. It has also been established that the premises were being used as a Factory. In these circumstances it appears to me that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate was improper and unjustified under the law.