B D JHUNJHUNWALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners stand convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and each of them has been sentenced there under to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default, to undergo S.I. for 15 days,

(2.) IT is not necessary for me to state here the allegations against the petitioners on which they were prosecuted, as the impugned order of conviction is challenged on a pure question of law which is stated herein below.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the trial of this case is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973. Section 26 (b) provides that any offence under any law other than those under the Indian Penal Code shall, when any court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such court. Accordingly, the offences alleged against the petitioners, being only under the Factories Act, could only be tried by a Magistrate of the first class as provided under Section 105 (2) of the Act. The word "trial is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Basil Ranger Lawrence v. Emperor (AIR 1933 PC 218) : (34 Cri LJ 886) state that "trial" means the whole of the proceeding. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case reported in AIR 1937 Bombay 55 : (38 Cri LJ 250) (Dagdu Govindset v. Punja Vedu) observed that the Courts in the Bombay Presidency have always accepted the definition of "trial" which has been given in the case reported in (1898) ILR 25 Cal 863 (Gomer Sirda v. Queen Empress)' wherein it is said: -