RAMNATH SHANKARLAL CHANDAK Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision from the applicant's conviction in respect of an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The applicant, who was convicted by the learned resident magistrate, first class, Ahmednagar, went up in appeal to the learned sessions judge of Ahmednagar; hut he refused to interfere with the conviction, and hence this application for revision.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. It appears from the evidence that the applicant in this case is the owner of certain premises, wherein twenty or more labourers work in the process of manufacturing bidis. On 29 October 1950 the complainant Yeshwant visited the premises and found that there was no latrine accommodation in the factory, as required by Section 19 (1) (a) of the Factories Act, 1948. The only defence of the applicant, which it is necessary to state, was that it was true that there was no latrine accommodation provided, but the premises was not a factory, as defined in Section 2 (m) of the Factories Act of 1948, because the persons working therein were not employed within the meaning of Section 2 (1) of the Act.

(3.) NOW, the Factories Act, 1948, defines a factory to mean any premises including the precincts thereof. . . .