EMPEROR Vs. RAMANLAL DALSUKHBHAI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against the conviction of the applicant under Section 60 (a)(iv) of the Factories Act, 1934, for leaving unfenced the hot water circulating tank in the Saraspur Mills in contravention of Rule 55 of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1935. The applicant is the manager of the Saraspur Mills, Ltd., Ahmedabad. On April 29, 1943, Mr. Kagal, Senior Inspector of Factories, Ahmedabad, visited that mill and discovered that the old wall which provided a fencing to the hot water circulating tank had been pulled down, and its place was taken by a wall of the newly built room of the Dyeing Department which was at a distance of about three or four feet from the old wall of the fence, and the space which was thus left open between the tank and the wall of the room of the Dyeing Department was used for storing articles required for the repairs of the nozzles in the hot water circulating tank. There was a window in the north-western corner of the wall of the room of the Dyeing Department, 3 6" X 3 6", which gave access to the edge of the tank from the Smithy Department. This amounted to a failure to provide secure fencing to the hot water circulating tank as required by Rule 55 of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1935. The Inspector, therefore, filed a complaint against the applicant. The applicant was tried by the First Class Magistrate, Ahmedabad, and a charge was framed against him under Sec. 60(a)(iii) of the Factories Act, 1934. It was contended before the learned Magistrate that Rule 55 of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1935, was ultra vires of the Provincial Government. But the learned Magistrate held that the Provincial Government had framed the rule under Section 32(g) of the Factories Act, 1934, and that the rule was not ultra vires. On this view, he convicted the applicant under Section 60(a)(iv), instead of under Section 60(a)(iii), of the Factories Act, under which he was charged, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200.

(2.) The applicant appealed to the Sessions Court, and the learned Sessions Judge summarily dismissed the appeal with a remark that he had perused the order of the learned Magistrate and had fully considered the arguments of the appellant's learned advocate. From the memorandum of appeal it appears that various points of law were raised op behalf of the appellant, and it would have been better if the learned Sessions Judge had given his reasons for agreeing with the view taken by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) On the admitted facts, there is no doubt that the hot water circulating tank, which is 36 in depth and contains hot water, is dangerous to human life and safety, and under Rule 55 of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1935, it must be securely fenced. The learned Magistrate visited the tank and he has observed in his notes of inspection that the window or gap in the wall leading to the tank is so situated that if a person goes through the window on the side of the tank he would find himself about three feet away from the edge of the unfenced tank. It is said that there is some loose iron sheet to cover the window. But the learned Magistrate has observed in his notes of inspection that there was no such loose piece of iron sheet when he visited the site. It must, therefore, be held that the tank was not securely fenced and thus the provisions of Rule 55 were contravened.