COL SARDAR C S ANGRE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, and arises out of a com plaint filed on 7th May, 1963 by B. L. Agarwal, Inspector of Factories and Boiler against Shri I. S. GUI and Col. Sardar C. S. Angre 'manager and Proprietor respectively of the Jodhpur Cold Storage, Soiatigate, Jodhpur, in the Court of City magistrate, Jodhpur.

(2.) THE material allegations on which the prosecution is founded are contained in para (3) of the complaint and may be set forth as follows: that on 11-4-1963 the complainant inspected the premises of the jodhpur Cold Storage and found that since 27th of August, 1962, the said cold storage had been employing 13 workers for storing potatoes in the cold storage hall maintained with a 35 H. P. Motor Engine and for removing them from the cold storage hall, drying them, grading them and refilling them in the bags. The expression "grading" has been nsed as the English equivalent of the Hindi word which implies sorting out of potatoes. On the basis of the above mentioned; activities carried on at the cold storage premises, it is claimed that the cold' storage constitutes a factory within the meaning of Section 2 (m) of the factories Act. It is further averred that the accused did not obtain a registration. , as required by, Section 6 of the Act and Rule 4 of the rules, framed thereunder. It is further stated that the accused petitioners were guilty and punishable under Section 92 read with Sections 6, 7 and 6i, of the Factories Act.

(3.) THE City Magistrate registered the case against the accused petitioners and issued processes for their attendance. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate registering a case and issuing processes the petitioner Col. Sardar C. S. Angre filed a revision application in the Court of Session Judge, Jodhpur. The petitioners' case before the Sessions Judge was that even on the facts as stated in the complaint the business premises of the accused-petitioner did not fall within the meaning of the word "factory" and, consequently, no charge against him was sustainable. The petitioner also pleaded that the complaint was barred in view of section 106 of the Factories Act as having been filed after the expiry of three months of the date of the commission of the offence. Both the contentions of the petitioner prevailed with the Sessions Judge and he came to the conclusion that no case was made out against the petitioner, He has, therefore, made lithe present reference Son quashing the proceedings.