EMPEROR Vs. DHANJI GOVINDJI BHATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point urged in this application for revision is that the Magistrate was wrong in holding that the petitioner was the occupier of the factory within the meaning of Section 17 of the Act. It appears to us that the word "occupier" there must bear the same meaning as it bears in similar enactments in and for its meaning there we have the authority of the Earl of Halsbury s Laws of England, Vol. XIV, Section 1033. We there read that occupier is a person who controls the factory or workshop and the work that is done there; and reference is made to the Scotch case of Ramsay v. Mackie (1904) 7 F. (Ct. of (sic)) where Lord M Larensays that occupier plainly means the person who regulates a factory and controls the work that is done there. If that be the meaning of the word in the Indian Statute there is nothing on the findings to suggest that the learned Magistrate s decision was wrong. We must, therefore, discharge the Rule.