RAVI SHANKAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 31/05/1988 of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur-city, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 22/88 confirming the order of conviction dated 4/04/1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur-city, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 2206/83, by which the petitioner was convicted under S. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00.

(2.) The petitioner is the proprietor of the firm M/s. Rambagh Service Station, Jaipur. This firm is an authorised dealer of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for selling petrol and high speed diesel. It runs a petrol pump for selling the petrol and high speed diesel and also a 'Service Station' for cleaning, washing and ailing of the vehicles. On 20/07/1983, the Deputy Chief Inspector, Factories and Boilors, inspected the establishment of the petitioner-firm and found that it was not registered under the Factories Act and was being run without a licence. Consequently, a complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur-city Jaipur. The learned Magistrate found that the establishment of the petitioner was functioning without registration and obtaining a licence under S. 6 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under S. 92 of the Act read with S. 6 as indicated above. The trial Magistrate also gave direction to the petitioner to get his commercial establishment registered under the Factories Act within a period of three months. The revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur-city, Jaipur.

(3.) Normally, after the rejection of the revision petition under S. 397, Cr. P.C. confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court, this Court does not entertain a petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. But, an important question of vital importance with regard to interpretation of S. 2(k) of the Act is involved and there is no reported judgment of this Court on the point involved, while there are divergent views of other High Courts; it has become necessary to decide the same, especially; for the guidance of the subordinate courts.