A D M COTTON Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of one who is described as A.D.M. Cotton. He was convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of three several offences under the Factories Act 12 of 1911. The first charge was Under Section 41(a) read with Section 26 and the offence alleged was that of allowing persons to be employed in the factory after the prescribed hours. On that charge he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or, in default, to under go six weeks simple imprisonment. The second charge was Under Section 41(g) read with Section 18 and Rule 14 and that related to a failure to comply with an order given by the Factory Inspector to remedy certain defects as regards the fencing or guarding certain machines and plant used in the factory. The last charge was brought Under Section 36(1) which requires that there shall be affixed in some conspicuous place near the main entrance of a factory the prescribed abstracts of the Act and of the rules made under that Act. On the second charge a fine of Rs. 200 was imposed, but no separate sentence was passed as regards the third charge.

(2.) The convictions were based on what I can only describe as very inadequate, loose and unsatisfactory evidence. The only witness for the prosecution was the Inspector of Factories who had visited the premises known as Bridge and Sons Printing Press at No. 1, British Indian Street on 9 August 1933, and all that he said in his examination-in-chief was: They have a great deal of power machinery electrically worked. The statement prepared by the accused shows 24 employees.

(3.) That was the sum total of his evidence-in-chief. It is quite obvious that if the matter had rested there he would have proved nothing at all which came within any measurable distance of the charges brought against the defendant. Unfortunately for the defendant however the lawyer who represented him seems to have rushed in with great indiscretion and thought it necessary to cross-examine Mr. Joardar with the result that he succeeded in extracting certain amount of evidence which told entirely in favour of the prosecution and was highly damaging to the defendant. A written statement had been put in by the defendant in which he pleaded that under the definition in the Factories Act the "concern," as he described it?Bridge and Sons?was not a factory. He also said that no notice had been served upon him requiring him to fence or to improve the fencing of the machinery concerned, and, as regards the other charges, he made statements which in a sense might have been taken as admissions of responsibility if not of guilt.