STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MANAGER SUTARIA AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent in two criminal cases filed against him. In both these cases the respondent was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 63 read with Section 92, Factories Act. The learned Magistrate who tried this case has held that the offence charged was not proved. That is why he passed an order of acquittal in favour of the respondent. In the present appeals, the State contends that the orders of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate are based on an erroneous construction of the material provisions of Rule 91 framed under the Factories Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the prosecution are not in dispute. Mr. Keskar, the Junior Inspector of Factories, Kolhapur, visited the Sutaria Automobiles at 8.10 p.m. on 12-3-1955. The respondent is the occupier and manager of the Sutaria Automobiles. Sutaria Automobiles is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act and it situated in the Cantonment area of Belgaum. The working hours as notified in this factory were 8 a.m. to 12 noon and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. On 12-3-1955 the Inspector found that three workers were working in the factory on motor car No. BYZ-3493 at the time when he visited the factory. He then recorded the statements of the workers and made his inspection remarks in the visit book. The inspector then filed a complaint against the respondent and alleged that the respondent had committed an offence under Section 63 read with Section 92, of the Indian Factories Act. The respondent admitted these facts, but he urged that the work on which his workmen were engaged at the time when the Inspector visited his factory was in the nature of urgent repairs and he claimed exemption under the provisions of Rule 91, That is how the principal question which falls for decision is whether the work which the workmen in the factory of the respondent were carrying out at the material time can be said to constitute urgent repairs within the meaning of the proviso to Rule 91.

(3.) Before dealing with this narrow point of law, it may be relevant to refer to one or two facts. The work on which the workmen were engaged was connected with the clutch-plate and the gear of the car in question. The driver of the car went to the factory and stated that he had to go by night for urgent work and that he wanted to put his clutch-plate and gear in order before starting on the journey. The respondent's case was that this was a case of urgent repairs to the car of his customer, and since it was permissible to him to allow his workmen to work beyond the statutory hours of work for carrying out urgent repairs, he could not be said to have committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.