NANDA SURYANARAYANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are cases referred under Section 438 Cr. P. C. by the Addl District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam recommending the setting aside of the convictions of the accused in S. T. C. Nos. 615 to 619 of 1968 on the file of the Jud. First Class Magistrate, Salur, under Section 6 rules 3 and 5 (iii) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, on revisions filed before him against those convictions. The Assistant Inspector of Factories, Srikakulam laid complaints before the Judl. 1st Class Magistrate, Salur alleging that the accused in each of those cases had bsen running tamarind factories without obtaining the prior permission of the Chief Inspector of Factories and without obtaining the licences and thereby they have committed offences under Section 6 rules 3 and 5 (iii) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act and wanted further directions to be given under Section 102 (1) of the Factories Act.

(2.) These complaints were taken on file as S.T Cs. 615 to 619 of 1958 to be tried under summary procedure Thereafter the Assistant Inspector of Factories examined himself as P. W. 1 in each of these cases and his evidence is that when he visited the premises of each of the accused on a particular day he found more than 20 parsons working for the removal of toe seeds, foreign material and cellulose laces from the tamarind and the accused himself was supervising the work, that the workers go to the premises normally at 8 A.M. when they would be delivered tamarind and they work till 4 P.M. and that each of the workers was being paid Rs. 2'- for each 25 kgs. of tamarind, that the accused was also selling these tamarind and the seeds separately to the merchants, that they have not got the required permission and licence which are necessary under the Factories Act. In each of these cases the accused had also examined a witness, one of the workers, to show that the accused was selling the de-seeded and cleaned tamarind and for de-seeding them he was employing the cooties who were being paid Rs. 1.50 for every 25 kgs. of tamarind de-seeded and there are no regular hours of work, The Magistrate found the accused in each of these cases guilty under tbt provisions of Section 6, Rules 3 and 5 (iii) of the Factories Act and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/~ each and in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days on each of the two counts. His order was in the tabular form prescribed under section 263 Cr.P.C Column .0 of the order reads as follows: 10, Finding and in the case of a conviction brief statement of the reasons thereof.

(3.) Guilty. The premises of accused is factory on the evidence on record The accused is proved to have contravened the provisions of Factories Act on both the counts alleged." On revisions filed before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, in all the five cases, after a review of the case law and other circumstances in the case with regard to what constitutes a factory under the Factories Act he recommended under Section 438 Cr. P. C. for setting aside of the convictions of the accused on the following grounds .'- (