INDER SEN ROY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Jalan Dyeing and Bleaching Mills (hereinafter referred to as "the Mills") is a factory registered under the Factory Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), situated at Fergusson Road, Lower Parel, in the City of Bombay. The Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") is the occupier of the said factory. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1973 (original accused Nos. 1 and 2) are the share-holders of the said company, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1973 (original accused No. 3) is the Director of the said company. It is common ground that accused No. 3 is not the share-holder of the company. It is alleged that on 22nd September, 1971, the Inspector of Factories (original complainant) visited the factory and found that a number of workers were taking their meals on the premises where they are required to work. The complainant, therefore, made enquiries and came to know that no lunch room of adequate dimensions for the use of the workers was provided in the factory, as required by Rule 86 of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") framed under the Act. The complainant, therefore, alleged that all the three accused persons contravened the provisions of Rules 86 of the Rules in not providing a lunch room for the workers in the factory and thereby they committed an offence punishable under S. 92 of the Act. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 admittedly are the share-holders of the company and the complainant prosecuted them treating them as occupiers in view of the provisions of S. 100 of the Act, and accused No. 3 is joined with them as co-accused because he has been named as occupier of the factory in form No. 3 for renewal of licence for the year 1972 and has signed the same from as Director for the occupier of the company.

(2.) All the three accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 admitted that they were the share-holder of the company who were the proprietors of the mills. However, both of them contended that they were not the occupiers of the factory and that they did not know if no lunch room was provided for the workers of the factory. They, therefore, denied to have committed any offence. Accused No. 3 admitted that he was the Director of the company who was the proprietor of the mills and that he was the occupier of the factory of the mills. He also admitted that he had signed certain correspondence (vide Exts. D and F) as an occupier and that there was no lunch room provided for the workers in the factory of the mills. He, however, contended that the Municipal Corporation did not permit them to construct any lunch room and hence they could not be provided any. He, therefore, denied to have committed any offence. He alleged that the complainant, who is the Senior Inspector of Factories, and also one Mr. Krishnan, another inspector, had objected to his being an occupier and refused to accept his nomination. On that ground also, he contended that he was not liable to be prosecuted.

(3.) The learned Presidency Magistrate, on consideration of the evidence and after construing S. 100 of the Act, came to the conclusion that accused Nos. 1 and 2 being shareholders could not be occupiers and, therefore, they were not liable to be prosecuted. As regards accused No. 3, he came to the conclusion that he being a Director, was an occupier, and though his nomination was not accepted by the complainant, still he being validly nominated under S. 100 of the Act, he was liable to be prosecuted and punished. Accordingly, he acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 2 and convicted accused No. 3 for the offence punishable under S. 92 of the Act read with Rule 86 of the Rules and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Being aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence, accused No. 2 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1973 and the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1973 against the order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2.