PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. MOHAMMAD MURTHUZA HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State Government) against an appellate order of acquittal passed, by the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore, setting aside the conviction of the respondent for an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act for the contravention of R, 3 and Rule 5 (3) of the Madras Factories Rules framed under Section 6 of the Factories Act.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution is as follows: The respondent is the occupier-cum-manager of the Stove Beedi Factory at Nellora. He has constructed a factory at Padugupadu without the prior approval of the plans, dy the Chief Inspector of Factories as required by Rule 3, and he has carried on a manufacturing process in the factory without obtaining a licence as required by R, 5 (3 ). The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Nellore Circle, visited the building belonging to the respondent at Padugupadu on 20-4-1955 at about 12-30 P. M. He found 24 persons working in the building. They were rolling 'beedies'. The Assistant Inspector of Labour then issued a notice to the respondent (Ex. P-2), enclosing a copy of his notes of inspection (Ex. P-l (a)), asking him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for not complying with the provisions of the Factories Act and the Rules as detailed in the notes of inspection. To that notice the respondent sent me following reply (Ex. P-3): Stove Beedi Nellore Mohd. Murtuza Hussain (Nellore) D/-14-5-55 Madras Presidency. To The Inspector of Factories, Nellore (VIII Circle ). Sir, Factories Act 1948 and Madras Factories Rules 1950 Non-compliance of provisions of Act and Rules Show Cause Notice. Ref: Your letter Re. B-2 No. 1100/55, dated -4-55. It is only a small beedi manufacturing branch, but not a factory to observe the rules. Yours sincerely, Sd/- Md. Murtuza Hussain.

(3.) ON receipt of this reply, a prosecution was launched against the respondent after obtaining the requisite sanction of the Chief Inspector of Factories.