STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VINOD S. SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, IInd Court, Thana, on April 15, 1969, acquitting the respondent Vinod S. Shah, Manager of Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd. at Kalwa, District Thana. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the pit in respect of which the Inspector of Factories had filed a complaint against the accused was a pit in the factory within the meaning of Section 33 of the Factories Act, 1948.

(2.) IT is undisputed that the pit was being dug 400 feet away from the sheds including the stores and offices in which the factory of Messrs Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd. has been working. The entire area of land belonging to the factory consists of 150 acres. It is clear from the sketch exh. 8 in the case that the sheds comprising the factory proper cover an area of only 5 acres. In the complaint filed by the Factory Inspector on September 2, 1968, it was alleged that when the Factory Inspector visited the factory on June 4, 1968, to inquire into the fatal accidents that occurred to a female worker Manjulabai Anauda and her son Mahendra Ananda aged about 5 years on the previous day, June 3, 1968, he discovered that Manjulabai had gone near the nit of the size of 15 feet by 10 feet and 9 feet deep containing water upto a height of 7 feet to wash some clothes and both the mother and her son were drowned in the pit. It was, therefore, alleged that the pit in the ground was a source of danger, as it was not securely fenced or covered at the time of the accident; and, therefore, the accused who was the Manager of the factory of Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd. was guilty of contravening the provisions of Section 33 of the Factories Act, 1948.

(3.) HOWEVER , the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the pit was dug for extending the factory and the work was in progress, because that was the defence which was taken by the accused before the learned Magistrate. It was necessary for the learned Magistrate to direct his attention to the provisions of the Factories Act and to see whether the prosecution led evidence to prove the charge under Section 33 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act. It was also necessary for the prosecution to lead proper evidence with regard to the facts which would bring home the charge under Section 33 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act.