PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. VATTEM VENKATRAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, which has been referred to a Division Bench by Sharfuddin Ahmed, J., as he dissented from the decisions in Public Prosecutor v. Mangaldas Thakker, 1957-2 Andh WR 455: (AIR 1958 Andh Pra 79), and Lakshmaiah Naidu v. State, 1958 ALT 804: (AIR 1959 Andh Pra 536), raises questions as to the construction and effect of Section 117 of the Factories Act (LXIII of 1948), hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) The material facts are briefly these. At 12.30 p.m. on 14-7-1959, the Additional Inspector of Factories at Gudivada (P. W. 1) visited the factory known as "Sri, Rama Seshasayi Rice Mill" and found one woman worker by name Karra Lakshmamma, working at the paddy sieve. This was beyond the period of work from 8.30 A.M. to 12 noon fixed for her beforehand under Section 61 and was, therefore, a contravention of Section 63 of the Act. Consequently, the respondent, who was the manager of the factory, was prosecuted for having committed an offeree punishable under Section 92 of the Act. The respondents defence was that Karra Lakshmamma was a piecetime worker, that she was paid extra wages for working overtime from 12 Noon to 1 p.m. as required by Section 59 of the Act and that the respondent bona fide believed that he could employ casual labour overtime, subject to the payment of overtime wages. The trial Magistrate observed that the facts were on all fours with the case in 1958 Andh LT 304: (AIR 1959 Andh Pra 536). He accordingly held that on a reading of Sections 59 and 63 of the Act together, it is not illegal to employ a casual worker overtime, if the worker was compensated by overtime wages. He also held that even if any of the provisions of the Act have been contravened, there was no mens rea on the part of the respondent, which ingredient has to be established by the prosecution by reason of Section 117 of the Act. On these grounds, he acquitted the accused and the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State Government, has come upon appeal against of the acquittal.

(3.) It may be useful at this stage to read the relevant portions of Sections 59, 63, 92 and 117 of the Act. They are in the following terms: